text:
Judge's wife: Should relationship be revealed?
It's no secret in local legal circles that Judge William Barkley is married to high-profile defense attorney Rhonda Quagliana.
Those who aren't lawyers might remember that Quagliana represented the apologetic rapist, William Beebe, arrested more than 20 years later when he begged his victim for forgiveness as part of a 12-step program. They might remember that she represented porn pastor Gregory Briehl, or wife-murderer Anthony Dale Crawford, or that she and her partner currently represent the accused killer of Yeardley Love, George Huguely.
But her marriage to Judge Barkley, that's a detail not so widely known.
Jessamy Rouson thinks it should be, particularly when Judge Barkley hears a case represented by his wife's firm, St. John, Bowling, Lawrence and Quagliana.
Rouson appeared before Judge Barkley in Albemarle General District Court October 15 as the plaintiff in a civil suit. Her adversary was represented by Fran Lawrence, Quagliana's partner.
According to Rouson, the judge told her that a family member worked for Lawrence's firm and offered to recuse himself. She signed a waiver that she claims she didn't read, Barkley heard the case, and then ruled against her.
Afterward, Rouson learned Barkley is married to Quagliana.
"He says a 'family member'," says Rouson. "That could be a nephew in a menial position. That's a lot different from saying, 'My wife is a partner with Fran Lawrence'."
Outraged, Rouson filed a complaint with the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
"This is clearly a glaring conflict of interest–- particularly as a portion of the income from St. John, Bowling, Lawrence and Quagliana is a part of Judge Barkley's personal household income," she wrote.
The response from the commission, which monitors judges in Virginia, was that she could have asked about the relationship before signing the waiver, says Rouson.
"I'm just the public," she says. "I'm not going to get up there and start questioning the judge, and I don't know that anyone would."
The Judicial Review and Inquiry Commission did not return repeated phone calls from the Hook.
While jurists do not hear cases represented by their spouses, a judge is not disqualified from hearing a case from his spouse's firm, according to Jim McCauley, ethics counsel for the Virginia State Bar. "The judge is required to disclose, and all parties must consent, or the judge must recuse," says McCauley.
That can pose its own problems in districts where there are vacancies on the bench and the case has to be continued. "Do you want the matter heard with bias, or do you want to further delay?" asks McCauley, who sees the dilemma Rouson's now facing.
"You can't raise the issue after the fact," he says. "If the judge disclosed at the outset of the case and she didn't act on it, and now she's coming back with sour grapes because the case didn't turn out the way she liked–- she could have said she needed more time to think."
However, McCauley also agrees that revealing the connection only as a "family member" doesn't sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision.
"The degree of the relationship should be disclosed," he says. "There's a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who's a partner and a second cousin who clerks."
Adds McCauley, "It matters."
Judge Barkley did not return phone calls from the Hook. Nor did Quagliana and Lawrence.
St. John, Bowling has another relationship with a judge in town: Albemarle Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Higgins is a former partner in the firm.
Last year, Higgins had defendant Patrick Crider play the violin to determine if he had a relationship with one of her children, and she stepped away from the case when she realized he did.
But she declines to discuss how she handles cases from her former firm. "Judge Higgins does not speak to the press," says her assistant.
"I've always seen great judgment by our judges," says attorney Steve Rosenfield, who has heard judges disclose relationships with witnesses and offer to step away if anyone has a concern.
As for disclosing family members, "It seems like greater candor to identify a spouse," Rosenfield says, but he also believes anyone like Rouson should take more responsibility. "It would have been fair for [her] to ask what is the role in the firm," he says.
Judge Steve Helvin is retired from the Albemarle General District bench where Barkley now sits. And while he notes that "You want to avoid not just impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety," he says his good friends Barkley and Quagliana have done that.
"They're very scrupulous," says Helvin. "I've never heard any complaints at all."
Helvin acknowledges that marrying the person one loves can create awkward professional situations, but not necessarily unethical ones. Helvin also notes that when a lawyer becomes a judge, she avoids hearing cases from her old firm for a period of time, such as six to 12 months, because she may have been involved with such cases.
For example, in her first term, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from about half the cases the Court has taken because she was familiar with them from when she was solicitor general.
Helvin, unlike his peers who shy away from speaking to the press on the issue of judicial conflicts, says, "It's a question that should be asked."
Rouson is not convinced by testimonies to Judge Barkley's fairness.
"I don't think Judge Barkley should be kicked off the bench, and I think he's probably a very nice man," she says. "I just don't think he should hear cases from his wife's law firm."
147 comments
Jessamy, the problem is you said that you believe that no attorney that was aware of the relationship would enter the waiver, but every attorney who has posted in response to this article has said that they would not have any reservations about arguing a case opposite an attorney from this firm in front of Judge Barkley. So you're not right that "no attorney" would have consented. So far...all of them WOULD. Secondly, you stressed in your earlier post that you weren't given time to read the waiver, and when called out on that you argue that there was no useful information in it anyway. I can't help but think about Woody Allen's complaint about a restaurant: "The food is terrible...and the portions are too small!" Do not be troubled about an attorney going into chambers before court. Again both parties must be conscious of appearances, but all of us attorneys go back into chambers now and again. If we were going to hatch some nefarious plot...we could probably figure out how to hide it a little better. I've had inmate clients suspect me of selling them out because they came into the courtroom in the morning when I was arriving and was shaking the prosecutor's hand. You need to strongly consider having an attorney at your appeal. Call around until you find one that will take the case on a contingency basis. But representing yourself in a case against a seasoned practitioner of the law is dangerous, and I suspect it had a lot to do with the outcome of your case. I wish you better luck on the next go-round. But I think having a good attorney there with you will make much more difference than having a different judge will make.
That's the best deflection on behalf of Hamiltonian fascist plutocracy (for whom tories Palin and Bachmann front) you can muster, Judge?
Mr. A Friend, I hear what you're saying, and I agree for the most part. But I don't personally think bias came into play or was the major concern in many of my cases. As Judge Helvin is quoted as saying above, the appearance of impropriety played into the decisions moreso.
The changing of the attorney was in one of several false criminal charges. In this particular case, the judge (Judge Helvin) did not recuse himself because any other incoming judge would have heard the fact that the arresting officer and myself were both sworn law enforcement officers at the time anyway, as part of the evidence. He also did not recuse himself because his baliff told him in chambers that they didn't need a substitute judge coming in and thinking this was a good cop versus a bad cop type of case. I agreed with the baliff, and so did the judge I guess. My attorney had a win/win case, so she didn't care if a substitute judge came in from anywhere in Virginia. This was a case where the judge had to occasionally hide his laughter at the evidence by quickly feigning a cough and covering his face (Judge Helvin may not appreicate my saying this, but I was far from the only person who noticed it). Most of the so called evidence was both amusing and hilarious, sorta like the Saturday morning cartoons! So uncontrollable laughter was to be expected, IMHO! The disturbing part of the trial was when a second in command at a local police department had to look at the floor when answering questions posed to him by the judge, he couldn't even look the judge eye to eye. His testimony totally contradicted that of a long time magistrate, police offifer, and deputy sheriff. The case was rotten to the core and never should have been in court in the first place.
In another false criminal charge, Judge Barkley did recuse himself. This was a case where the incoming judge had to decide which group of cops was telling the truth, and which group weren't. I do not blame Judge Barkley at all for not wanting to place himself in that position. I used the same attorney as in the case I just mentioned above. To sum it up in 3 words or less, she kicked butt.
The other changing of the judge, Judge Barkley, was in a simple civil case. But, like I said, the substitute judge had known me for 30+ years too. It's was just sorta ironic I suppose. :)
Jessamy Rouson - I write to once again clarify points which seem to have been missed by some readers.
First: I represented myself in the civil trial. I had no attorney. I am unable to afford an attorney at this time. I did appeal the civil case to Circuit Court immediately after Judge Barkley's decision.
Second: The waiver stated "a family member works in the firm" - no more than what Judge Barkley had stated in court. If I had read the document ten times, it would not have made a difference. I assumed, as most people would assume, that a "family member" was a distant relative and a lower level employee of the firm. I, like most people, felt it would be inappropriate to question the Judge. I never dreamed Judge Barkley's wife was a partner to my adversary.
Mr McCauley, Ethic's Counsel for the VA Bar, agrees that revealing the connection only as a ââ?¬Å?family member" doesn't sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision. ââ?¬Å?The degree of the relationship should be disclosed," he says. ââ?¬Å?There's a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who's a partner and a second cousin who clerks."
There was no excuse for Judge Barkley to describe his relationship with Mr. Lawrence in this manner - other than to purposely avoid full disclosure of the fact that Judge Barkley's wife is a Full Partner to my adversary, Mr Lawrence. I am sure none of this would have happened if I had had an attorney representing me - nor would a waiver have been accepted.
In regard to the criminal trial of Trespassing and Destruction of Property, Judge Barkley "reserved judgment" until a later date. This confounded the Commonwealth as the case was clear, the evidence was overwhelming and the defendant had confessed in full. Just prior to 9am, the morning of Judge Barkley's decision in the criminal case, Mr. Lawrence slipped back into the Judge's Chambers alone. When he came back out into the courtroom, Judge Barkley appeared. Within a matter of no more than two minutes, he stated "There was a defense for these charges - Dismissed." And then Judge Barkley left the courtroom - it was his only appearance on that day, 10/19/10. Please check that fact if you doubt me. There is no Judge's order on record, other than DISMISSED - nor is there a transcript from General District Court. I checked on both.
Mr. Lawrence's only defense was basically - I paraphrase -"Trespassing is okay if it does not disturb the peace."
It is understood that breaking onto one's private property around midnight, removing a horse from the other stablemates, leaving farm gates open, and destroying property, all DISTURB THE PEACE. Mr. Lawrence's defense had no merit whatsoever. Judge Barkley surely is a good enough judge to have known that there was no merit to the defense. It was an extremely bizarre and erroneous decision. I can only surmise that Judge Barkley's relationship with Mr. Lawrence had an impact. Judge Barkley should declare a mistrial if he is unable to vacate his decision, and he should respond to my respectful correspondence.
In summary. This is not "sour grapes" as some readers have stated. The civil case is on appeal. This is about a glaring conflict of interest which has an effect on the public, as well as an effect on the Attorneys of the Commonwealth and the police who work endlessly to protect the public.
From the Canons of the Judicial Review Committee:
Under Canon 3E:
ââ?¬Å?A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or a personal knowledge of evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."
ââ?¬Å?Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply."
Buchanan v. Buchanan:
ââ?¬Å?The judge must also consider the public's perception of his or her fairness, so that the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained."
I believe it is fair to say that Judge Barkley's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" and that Judge Barkley's behavior has damaged "the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system." It certainly has damaged my confidence in the General District Court.
Thank you again for reading my position,
Jessamy Rouson
"According to Rouson, the judge told her that a family member worked for Lawrence's firm and offered to recuse himself. She signed a waiver that she claims she didn't read, Barkley heard the case, and then ruled against her."
umm...if you are in COURT, and you are asked to SIGN something, you should READ it. judge did right, rouson was careless, end of story.
Having had a similar experience with this law firm in the past, I would have to lay blame on them in this case. I once hired Fran Lawrwence to represent me in a case. Once I discovered his "family member" was a very close relative of the spokesperson of the department I was sure I would be suing at the conclusion of the case, I asked him to step aside. Perhaps relationships between judges, attorneys and others should be clearly defined by the associates in the law firm prior to proceeding in any case. 5 minutes before appearing in front of the judge, how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to advise Jessamy Rouson that the judge was her husband? I am sure Rouson would have then said this was not acceptable and asked for a continuance. As Judge Helvin mentioned, maybe the appearance of impropriety was now there when this wasn't done.
Here's my two cents:
1. COMPLETE disclosure should be made in cases where the judge and one of the attending attorneys are married or the complete relation to one another. Let's face it, pillow talk goes a long way.
2. Rouson should have READ the document and apparently her attorney was not coherent enough to advise her properly.
3. @Lisa...did you find out who represented Rouson in this case? Did she represent herself? Or did she decline to say? That information would have been very helpful.
Here's my two cents:
1. COMPLETE disclosure should be made in cases where the judge and one of the attending attorneys are married or the complete relation to one another. Let's face it, pillow talk goes a long way. 2. Rouson should have READ the document and apparently her attorney was not coherent enough to advise her properly. 3. @Lisa...did you find out who represented Rouson in this case? Did she represent herself? Or did she decline to say? That information would have been very helpful.
"5 minutes before appearing in front of the judge, how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to advise Jessamy Rouson that the judge was her husband?"
ok, but how hard would it have been for Ms. Rouson to READ THE DOCUMENT the judge presented and take that opportunity to ASK for clarification on the details of the relationships BEFORE she SIGNED her right to object away??
i don't feel the clarification was the responsibility of OPPOSING counsel to make. Rousan was TOLD of a potential conflict of interest and SIGNED THE WAIVER without regard to its contents and only objected after the case didn't go her way.
too late for sour grapes, imho.
Mr/Mrs/Miss Local, most people do not understand how the courts work. My having worked in the courts for 25 years, I can tell you most people will sign any document you lay in front of them without reading it.
Did the document clearly state that Rhonda Quagliana is the wife of the presiding judge? If it did, perhaps we can lay the blame on Rouson. If it didn't, somebody was obligated to explain the very close relationship between the judge and Rhonda Quagliana, IMHO.
A few other thoughts...
1. This is not likely a case of pillow talk, unless Fran Lawrence and Bill Barkley have a relationship of which I am unaware. If Rhonda Quagliana had a case in front of Bill Barkley, no "disclose and waive" would suffice.
2. Most of the lawyers in Charlottesville (I haven't talked to all of them) have a great deal of confidence in Bill Barkley and his judicial temperament and his ability to be a fair judge.
3. I have tried a civil case against Fran Lawrence in front of Judge Barkley, and was satisfied that my client got a fair hearing and a fair result. The client was also satisfied. It would not surprise me to learn that the lawyer in this case told Ms. Rouson that she would be perfectly happy with Judge Barkley on the case.
4. The standard for recusal is not whether there is actual corruption, but whether there is the APPEARANCE of impropriety. In my experience, Judge Higgins and Judge Barkley have been happy to recuse themselves if there has been any question at all. You don't have to work to convince them. As Judge Barkley will note, "I have enough other cases. It doesn't bother me." The only negative repercussion would have been that the case would have been rescheduled for a day when a different judge was sitting, though on some days, if Judge Downer is free, he and Judge Barkley will switch courtrooms on 10 minutes' notice. As it is, Judge Downer sits in Albemarle County General District Court whenever one of Rhonda Quagliana's cases is heard. It happens a lot, and accommodating that need delays things by at most a few weeks. The practical issue for Ms. Rouson's lawyer in advising her whether to waive a conflict of interest is not whether Bill Barkley would intentionally put his thumb on the scale on the side of Fran Lawrence's client and intentionally say, "This person ought to lose, but I'm going to rule in her favor because I want to help my wife's partner because that will result in more money for the firm and therefore more money for her." The stereotypical mutual back-scratching society portrayed in the movies has SOME basis in experience, though I don't think it does here. But ultimately the person who has to be comfortable with the judge is the client, not the lawyer.
5. Only Ms. Rouson can judge for herself (with the advice of her counsel) whether there is an appearance of impropriety. If she felt that there was, all she had to do is to say so. If she had felt after the fact that she had not gotten a fair hearing, she had an absolute right to appeal to the Circuit Court without giving any explanation at all.
6. In every county or city there are conflict issues like this. When Ward Harkrader was the Circuit Court Judge in Louisa, and his sons Fletcher and Clyde were practicing law in Louisa, he routinely scheduled days when Judge Swett or some other judge from the area would come to Louisa, so that his sons could practice law. The same thing happened in Buckingham and in Greene/Madison, and in plenty of other jurisdictions around the state. The question of "you used to be in that law firm" comes up every time a lawyer becomes a judge (the judge can't hear cases arising from that firm for a year or so).
7. Fortunately, we have not had the situation that arose in Texas -- a defendant was sentenced to death by a judge who was having an extra-marital affair with the prosecutor at the time. What was remarkable about that case was not just that the judge would have an affair with the prosecutor, but that once the issue came to light, NO APPELLATE COURT CARED. Virtually all of the appellate judges who looked at the question of the inherent injustice said, "It doesn't smell good, but show me a particular error that the judge made." Finally, last February, Charles Dean Hood's death sentence was overturned last year on other grounds -- that the judge did not permit some mitigating evidence to come into the sentencing hearing. He was given a new sentencing hearing, though, since he still maintains his innocence, he's not happy about that either. Hood has been on death row for 20 years.
what does Connor Crook think about this issue?
gsoe - i think that would then heighten the attorney's responsibility to understand (ASK) why her client was being asked to sign such a waiver. surely the atty understood enough to know there was something to know.
and, right - because i have enough general understanding of what i am signing in your traffic citation scenario, i don't read every word of the citation before i sign it. but NEITHER do i try to get out of the offense by saying i wasn't fully advised of the ticket's contents.
and to be sure, if i didn't understand part of the cop's "explanation" as he handed me the ticket, i WOULD ask for clarification before i signed!
it IS simply foolish to sign without reading.
doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just means once you have signed, you have no recourse.
- and it's Mrs! ;)
not swinging at you at all, but my point is whether she knew or not is inconsequential, she had OPPORTUNITY to seek clarification on the issue, DIDN'T, lost her case, and only now is crying ethics violation. she SIGNED her rights away. her only recourse is with her attorney, for allowing her to sign without gaining full comprehension of what she was waiving.
Thanks for clarifying Cvllelaw - I misread the article. I went back and re-read...I was under the impression that Ms. Quagliana was the attorney for the firm, not Mr. Lawrence. Puts a bit of a different spin on it. However, with Cville be such a small town, there are relationships (husband, wife, ex-partner) that could come into question in the minds of anyone having a case being heard. Since either of the judges are not opposed to recuse themselves, maybe it would be best if they made any relationships completely clear and thus no one could be opposed to the ruling later on the questioned grounds. They could only chalk it up to either the facts were not enough to warrant the case or the judge was having a "bad hair day". :)
ps - in my last reply I should not have implied I was on the losing end of a case. I wasn't, and never have been. I hired a new attorney and kicked butt. But had I been on the losing end, without proper disclosure, people would say I was was only whining because I lost, sour grapes, the whole nine yards! :)
Mr/Mrs/Miss A Friend, you're literally reading way too much into my written word. Of course everything needs to be done through the proper channels. I meant it wasn't a hard task for Lawrence to explain to Rouson's attorney that one of his partners is married to the judge. If this had been done, it would have been very clear to Rouson what the judge was speaking of at the beginning of the trial. This disclosure could possibly have changed the entire outcome of this case.
As I said above, I had the same problem with an attorney, a proper disclosure of relationships wasn't made to me prior to a case in which I had hired an attorney to represent me in. Had I not found out about it before trial, I would be screaming foul just like Rouson is. And after trial, without a disclosure, people would claim I was only screaming foul because I was on the losing end of the case too.
And you know me, I am usually the devil's advocate for the underdog because nobody else will accept the position here. :)
Mr/Mrs/Miss Local, since Bouson's attorney if from out of town, there's a chance he/she didn't even know the close relationship between Rhonda Quagliana and the judge.
Now honestly, if you're sitting on the side of the road signing a traffic citation a cop has explained and handed to you, do you read every word on it, front and back? Of course you don't! So don't say it's "simply foolish" to sign something without reading it first.
I think one question needs to be answered before we beat each other up in this discussion.
LISA ............ at any time prior to the hearing actually taking place, did Jessamy Rouson know that Rhonda Quagliana was married to Judge Barkley?
Who was Rouson's lawyer, and why didn't her legal counsel inform her of the relationship, if it could prejudice the case ? That's the person I would find fault with, not the judge.
tom, i believe rouson is the client not the attorney - in either case, someone should have READ the damn document - and if rouson wants to find fault, you're right, she should start with her own attorney!!
This is a travesty and I pray some action is taken. I agree that stating that you have a family member working for a firm does not represent to ANY degree the level of connection the judge has with the firm. Stating that the person appearing in court could have queried further is pathetic. When you are in the position of having your case heard before a judge, you are vulnerable and weak. You don't know the system, and at best, you try to be and appear polite and unchallenging. I've been before judges where I've tried to represent my position politely and clearly, but it is received as a challenge and you can feel the animosity and resentment.
This is a fight worth fighting.!
A competent lawyer would advise us to read any document before we sign it; her signing the document without reading it on behalf of her client amounts to malpractice.
Justice, C'ville style.
agreed that "most people" do not understand the court system. but signing ANY document without reading it is simply foolish.
while not to the same extent as you, i have worked within and been a participant in various court systems for many years. i have learned that if you ASK, generally people will tell you what you need to know. granted, you may have some hoops to jump through, as in - no, the document probably did not state clearly the relationship, but again, if you are signing a legal document in court, it is your OWN obligation to be sure you understand what you are signing, and to ASK if you don't.
or maybe your own attorney's obligation, but opposing counsel's?? not her responsibility.
- "mrs local" ;)
Mrs. Local, we know Rouson claims she never knew that Rhonda Quagliana and the judge were married. I'm still wondering if Quagliana, Lawrence and Judge Barkley agree with this claim or not. The answer to this question could sway my opinion one way or the other.
At least I got you to admit you sign documents without reading them first. :)
"This is not likely a case of pillow talk, unless Fran Lawrence and Bill Barkley have a relationship of which I am unaware."
cvllelaw highlights this other important fact - quagliana wasn't even INVOLVED in this case - so what if she works with the guy arguing the case - how many degrees of separation are acceptable exactly?
Don't forget cheryl higgins heard and ruled on several important evidentiary matters concerning accused lacrosse murderer George Huguely.
Higgins, of course, is a former partner in the same firm as Fran Laurence -- who is defending Huguely on the murder charge. This is sort-of pointed out in the article, but I wanted to clarify and amplify the point.
C-ville is a cozy little town, eh?
to those of you saying she should have read the document.. did that document say that his WIFE was a PARTNER in the law firm and that he stood to PROFIT from ruling against her?
just sayin.....
Deleted by moderator.
Bravo! That's one of the best parodies of teabagger speak that I've read yet! Briliant how you weave the Chairman Mao references in but conclude with the "true American patriot Jesse Ventura" thing.
Since this case was in general district court, why not just appeal to circuit court and get a whole new trial with a different judge? Of course, that alone doesn't resolve the issue of whether the judge should have recused or whether Rouson should have read the waiver or further questioned the judge. The way the article was written I initially assumed Rouson represented herself. It made no mention of her having a lawyer.
Re: Ms. Rouson's complaint that Judge Barkley has not communicated or commented on her complaints, Virginia judges are severely restricted in the comments they can make on cases pending before them, or on cases where they have ruled. Do not confuse his lack of response with a lack of courtesy. As for the criminal matter, once the judge has dismissed it, he has no authority to reinstate the charge or declare a mistrial. He loses jurisdiction over the matter. I assume the Commonwealth's Attorney's office assisted with the prosecution and explained this to you.
I do not always agree with the Judge's rulings, but I have never seen any bias or corruption in the way he handles matters. Lots of judges in our circuit have relationships, by way of marriage, past marriage, children, blood, or former employment, with practicing attorneys. I have never seen a circumstance where any judge has heard a case when a litigant has raised the issue of bias. I understand your frustration, and maybe the Virginia Supreme Court should require a recusal in the cases you describe, but I am confident that I would have proceeded to try the case in front of Judge Barclay despite his marriage to Ms. Quagliana.
Gasbag, you asked how hard would it have been for Rhonda Quagliana to take 5 minutes to explain this to Rouson. Answer: very hard. Because this would affect EVERY case in which ANY member of her firm had a case that at least started in the Albemarle General District Court, number one. Number two, an attorney may not initiate communication with an adverse party to a lawsuit when he or she knows that person is represented by counsel, which means that all communication must go through that other person's attorney. So for you to suggest that Rhonda must find out who the adverse parties are on EVERY case that EVERY member of her firm is working on in Albemarle, and then track down their attorneys and then tell them she's married to the judge is ridiculous to say the least. It's also ridiculous to sign anything you haven't read (at least quickly). You usually make some good points in your comments but today wasn't your day. The most logical and efficient focus of what disclosure is necessary is upon the judge. Not because there WAS impropriety in this case, but simply because a citizen is raising the claim that there was an appearance of it. She is wrong, but hey, appearances are subjective. Judge Barkley did nothing wrong and deserves not the slightest reprimand, especially here, where the litigant could not even be asked to READ the waiver before she signed it. However, moving forward, to avoid even a similar CLAIM of an appearance of impropriety, the judge SHOULD simply say, "My wife is a partner at the same law firm as this attorney. I can promise you that will gain neither side in this case any advantage or disadvantage, however, if you prefer I would be happy to recuse myself and the case will be continued until some other day when a different judge can hear the case in this courtroom." Some of you more conspiratorial commentors out there are greatly overblowing how much firm partners are likely to talk about their cases to each other, much less how much a wife is likely to discuss with her husband a case of low enough dollar amount that it is even IN General District Court with her husband when SHE'S not even involved in the case. If THIS was their "pillow talk", they probably wouldn't even be married anymore!
Mike, some cases just aren't worth pursuing any further. And small claims court is basically a joke anyway. My wife had a guy back into one of our cars, hit & run, and did $700 in damages. I had to chase the guy down the street on foot, just like you see in the movies. His insurance company offered us $500, we refused and filed a claim against the driver in General District Court. Well, when we got to court his insurance company had 3 attorneys there in $1,000 three piece suits to represent him. They objected to every word said in court. We finally got totally frustrated and walked out. (Prior to trial, Judge Barkley stepped aside since we had known each other for 30+ years. Funny thing is I had known the substitute judge for 30+ years as well, he did not recuse himself! One of those "huh?" moments in life.)
I filed the claim against my insurance. I guess my insurance company then went after the other guy's insurance company. So there was probably then 6 attorneys in $1,000 suits fighting over a $700 claim.
I left the courtroom under the opinion that judges don't even want to fool with crash cases, they would rather the insurance companies fight each other. And cops pretty much share this opinion now too, it's very seldom they will charge people in motor vehicle accidents. Even when there are witnesses.
Gasbag, it sounds like you changed lawyer AND judge and yet chalk most of your change in momentum up to the change in judge only, which is specious. Maybe your new attorney would have won in front of the same old judge, maybe he wouldn't have. It doesn't prove the judge was "biased". Don't forget that judges are unique and human just like any of us. Two judges may rule differently on the same case sometimes; this doesn't prove one is biased and one isn't. They each come from a whole different human experience. Attorneys make a business, in part, of trying to have a feel for the personalities of different judges, what arguments work better with certain ones, what issues matter more to them, etc. When you hire an out-of-town attorney, you forego that pragmatic knowledge advantage. A local attorney would have explained the judge's relationship better, and I am quite sure, would explain he had no fears of bias, but would make his recuse/don't recuse decision based solely on which judge he felt would be more receptive to the arguments in your case. Jessamy, you decided to forego that possible pragmatic knowledge advantage by hiring out-of-town counsel. That was YOUR choice.
PS: GBSOE, It's Mr. A Friend, Esq., actually. I don't want to use my name because I'm not trying to score any brown-nosing points with this judge, just saying what I honestly feel. And, no, I don't work for St. John, Paul, George, Ringo, Lawrence and Quagliana either.
I am Jessamy Rouson.
I write to clarify some points of confusion. There were two cases in front of Judge Barkley involving the same defendant - a criminal trial and a civil trial. The defendant was represented in both by Francis Lawrence of St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. In the criminal case, of which I was the victim, there was no disclosure whatsoever regarding Judge Barkley's wife being a Partner to the defendant's attorney, Mr. Lawrence. The defendant had confessed the crimes in full to the police - trespassing and destruction of property. The defendant had broken onto my well posted private property around midnight, and removed her horse to avoid paying a bill on the horse - a bill which I had greatly reduced because I mistakenly thought this person was a friend at the time. There was no legitimate defense for the defendant's behavior. Mr. Lawrence's weak defense had no merit whatsoever. The evidence was overwhelming and the Commonwealth proved their case well beyond a reasonable doubt. This trial, "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", should have ended with a guilty verdict and an indictment. However, Judge Barkley dismissed the case. The police and the Commonwealth Attorney were shocked. As the victim and part of the public, I was shocked as well.
I represented myself in the civil trial of this case. I am unable to afford an attorney at this time. I simply wanted to collect the $5,000 owed to me for riding,training and caring for the defendant's horse for eight months.
In the beginning of the civil trial, Judge Barkley stated that "a family member worked with Mr. Lawrence". Out of the blue, Mr Lawrence then produced a waiver which he had obviously prepared, stating "a family member works in the firm." I was told to sign the waiver and not given the opportunity to completely read or question the document. When the Judicial Commission sent me a copy, the waiver stated only "a family member" - hardly a full disclosure of the relationship between Mr. Lawrence and his Partner, Judge Barkley's wife. "A family member" is a far cry from the full disclosure the public deserves from Judge Barkley, such as, "I am married to Rhonda Quagliana who is a Full Partner to your adversary, Mr. Lawrence, in the firm St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. In addition, a part of my personal household income is derived via my wife from your adversary's law firm." Had this been truthfully stated, I definitely would have asked Judge Barkley to recuse himself. I believe anyone would have. I also believe the outcome would have been different in both the criminal and the civil trials with an unbias judge. Justice would have prevailed.
The Commonwealth Attorney is unable to appeal criminal cases. Hence, I have written to Judge Barkley several times respectfully requesting that he vacate his erroneous verdict of "dismissal" in the criminal case - or declare a mistrial. I copied the letters to Mr. Lawrence, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the Judicial Review Commission. Judge Barkley has refused to respond to my correspondence.
The civil case, "Rouson v Olson", is on appeal to the Circuit Court. Judge Higgins did the honorable thing and appointed another judge, as she was once a Partner with Mr. Lawrence. I ask that Judge Barkley do the honorable thing and vacate his decision in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" - or declare a mistrial.
I believe the public should demand that Judge Barkley do the honorable thing and recuse himself from hearing any and all cases represented by his wife's firm: St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. I would not wish anyone to have the same experience. The public deserves to have faith in the integrity of their judicial system. The Commonwealth Attorney and the police work exhaustively to protect our community. The public deserves for justice to be served.
Thanking those of you who support my position.
Jessamy Rouson
Okay...attempt NUMBER SEVEN to type the same thing. Jessamy, you had as much time as you needed to read this document. NOTHING would have happened in this case until you were done reading the waiver and had signed it. Yes, everybody would have been annoyed as they sat there for five minutes waiting for you to get done reading, but the world doesn't owe it to you to make you FEEL okay about taking the time to read a document. You will be in this situation over and over in life, signing up for something, signing your 20 page mortgage, signing a traffic ticket, etc. Yes, there is a human tendency not to WANT to create a socially awkward situation, but it's ON YOU if you don't have the nerve to take the time you need to read something. When they need your signature on a document to move forward, you have ALL the leverage there is in the case at that moment. Don't blame the system or the judge because you didn't have the nerve to hold the process up while you read the piece of paper. Next, you didn't have any standing to object to the attorney or the judge in the criminal case, because you weren't a party...just a witness. The party was the Commonwealth, not you. This is an important distinction, because it is why a defense attorney is ALLOWED to talk to a victim in a case; he does not have to go through the Commonwealth's Attorney, because the Commonwealth's Attorney does not represent YOU...he represents the Commonwealth. If you won your case, you would not be claiming any bias. You lost, so you assume there was, without ANY evidence. Not only does the judge have no legal power to vacate his decision as you requested if the case is no longer in the breast of the court, timewise, he has no reason to. If he was biased, he wouldn't admit it. If he was unbiased, he would have nothing to admit. You have no reason to ask for it either, as your appeal in Circuit Court is "de novo" (i.e., as if the earlier trial never happened), so why would you NEED it vacated? Higgins may have recused herself, but she also practiced fairly recently with that firm, and she is probably also aware that you have raised the spectre of bias. I assume if the substitute judge in circuit court rules against you, you will be satisfied that the lower judge was unbiased. I'm kidding...I don't think you'll ever accept that! Again, moving forward, the judge should disclose his relationship more explicitly because our profession strives to avoid someone even INCORRECTLY suspecting bias, but that is a far cry from saying that bias affected the outcome of your case in any way. You simply have provided NO evidence of that, and are asking the court of public opinion to rule in your favor anyway. I'm afraid this court rules against you too.
Jassamy, why were the criminal charges tosswed out of court. I am sure the judge explained his thoughts at the time, what were those thoughts?
testing testing do these comments even work anymore? nothing ever shows up anymore.
"The judge must also consider the public's perception of his or her fairness, so that the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained."
Well Judge your behavior certainly causes me to question your fairness. I guess since I am a member of the public you screwed up....
The entire court system in Charlottesville is a little too cozy.
The way the Commonwealth attornies get paid by the state causes them to charge people with felonies and then drop them back to misdemeanors to qualify for money. It is nothing short of shafting someone for the sake of a few bucks and it is wrong. Peoples lives have been destroyed by this behavior and it should be investigated and reported on.
Good luck with you civil case...
@jessamy - I am confused how the judge can "dismiss" a case when the defendant has "admitted guilt". Yeah, that smells funny.
@A Friend - glad you are now judge and jury. We look forward to your next case.
judge higgins is married to a high ranking c-ville police officer. He has hands in everything. Albermale & c-ville officer's work together all the time .
Know It All, which would you be more concerned about?
A. Her husband testifying in a case, with his reputation for truthfullness and honesty...
B. The testimony of a police officer(s) who has historically been well known for telling less than the truth.
The commenters who think that the judge would benefit financially from this ruling aren't look at the specifics of the case. A favorable ruling for the defendant actually reduces the money for that firm because the case is now over. There was no monetary award that could be split with the defendant's lawyer no matter how the case ended. His wife's firm could receive only payment for billable hours.
Is there room for criticism? Possibly. But that criticism will be more effective if it sticks to reality, difficult as that may be on the internet.
I agree with Joyce. How can a criminal case be "dismissed" when the defendant has confessed in full to the police and the Court? In addition, the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming, the defense's argument had no merit whatsoever, and the Commonwealth proved the case well beyond a reasonable doubt. One has to ask - What is wrong with our judicial system?
KS is actually incorrect. By dismissing the civil case, Judge Barkley's wife's firm: St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana, stand to earn substantially more from the defendant as the case in on appeal. The defendant lives off alimony and does not need to work for a living. One must surmise that the defendant would prefer to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees to avoid paying a $5,000 debt to the plaintiff who does work for a living. It seems the defendant should simply pay what she owes for work that was done - something the majority of us do on a daily basis. Of course, the defendant obviously wasn't thinking clearly when she broke onto private property around midnight and removed a horse. Dangerous for the defendant, dangerous for the horse, and dangerous for the other horses in the stable which were upset by the incident.
The issue is very simple: Judge Barkley does not make full disclosure of the fact that his wife is a partner to Mr Lawrence and the other attorneys in her firm. Judge Barkley should recuse himself from any and all cases in which his wife's firm, St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana, represent a party - thus avoiding the blatant appearance of impropriety.
So the case is on appeal. By you I assume, since why would the defendant appeal a dismissal? If it had gone the other way, would the defendant have given up and not tried to appeal? Doesn't seem like it. End result, same legal fees. And the other lawyers in a firm don't get much out of somebody else's billable hours. Now giant cash awards... that's different. Keep in mind I'm not saying there's not a bad appearance here, or defending the decision. I'm just saying people are overestimating the money, unless this lady spends like $200,000 on lawyers.
Know it all and Gasbag- What are you trying to say on a very public forum? I'm Curious.
I don't think I stuttered.
I would like to respond to @AFriend's commentary of Feb 1, and to those who wonder why I did not take the time to read the "waiver" thoroughly in Court. As previously covered in my comments of Feb 1 and Feb 3, Judge Barkley stated at the beginning of the civil trial that "a family member worked with Mr Lawrence". Judge Barkley stated this in a very light, nonchalent manner. (No disclosure whatsoever was made in the criminal trial -
"The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson".) I responded by saying I just wanted the truth to be heard and for justice to prevail. At this point, Mr Lawrence whipped out a waiver which he had prepared, and handed it to Judge Barkley. I was never offered the document to read, nor was I offered a copy. Judge Barkley placed only the signature line on the bench, and I was told to sign the waiver. It was clear that Judge Barkley had discussed this case with Mr Lawrence without my knowledge.
Common sense tells anyone that one should read the waiver before signing. I agree completely with those who have said as much. However my distinct feeling at the time, was that this would anger Judge Barkley significantly. As previously stated, I was representing myself, because I am unable to afford representation by an attorney at this time. The last thing I wanted to do was anger the Judge. I had the civil case before me and the criminal case was "under advisement" - which onto itself was a bizarre decision by Judge Barkley. The criminal trial should have ended the first day with a guilty verdict and an indictment. The defendant had confessed the crimes in full to the police and the Court. The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and the Commonwealth proved their case well beyond a reasonable doubt.
When I received a copy of the "waiver" from the Judicial Review Commission, it stated only that "A family member worked in Mr Lawrence's firm." There was no inkling of the truth which is: Judge Barkley's wife, Rhonda Quagliana, is a full partner to Mr Lawrence in the firm St John, Bowling, Lawrence & Quagliana. The defendant was being represented, at both the civil and the criminal trials, by Judge Barkley's wife's law firm - in front of Judge Barkley! Had I known the truth, I definitely would have requested that Judge Barkley recuse himself. I also believe the majority of the public would do the same. I strongly feel that the public should be aware of this blatant conflict of interest, (which hopefully this article has accomplished), so they may make their own informed decision with complete knowledge of the truth.
@A Friend also states that he, and all the attorneys commenting on this article, would sign the waiver knowing very well that the defendant was being represented by the Judge's wife's law firm. That is an attorney's choice, but I don't believe it would be the choice of their clients. One prominent Virginia attorney told me that I should not have signed the waiver and that the fact that a waiver was needed, should constitute grounds for an immediate recusal. Another top northern attorney who practices in Federal Court, told me that there was no excuse for Judge Barkley to represent his relationship with the defense counsel in this manner, other than to "hoodwink" me. He was adamant that I should not have signed the waiver. He believed Judge Barkley should be recused from any and all cases in which his wife's law firm represents a party. I agree. I believe the majority would agree as well.
Thank you for reading my comments and position on this matter.
If the wavier hadn't been signed and the judge had recused himself, any potential anger he might have had would have been irrelevant wouldn't it? Why not then refuse to sign?
Dear CookieJar,
I signed the waiver based on Judge Barkley's statement that "a family member works with Mr Lawrence". I was unaware at that time that there was a conflict of interest. I assumed and believe most people would have assumed, based on that statement, that the "family member" was a distant relative in a menial position at the firm. Saying "a family member works with Mr Lawrence" is far from the full truth. As Jim McCauley, Ethics Counsel for the Virginia Bar, stated within the article:
McCauley also agrees that revealing the connection only as a "family member" doesn't sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision.
"The degree of the relationship should be disclosed," he says. "There's a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who's a partner and a second cousin who clerks."
Adds McCauley, "It matters."
I was unable to make an informed decision, because I was not told the full truth: My adversary in these cases, Mr Lawrence, is a full partner to Judge Barkley's wife. The defendant was being represented by Judge Barkley's wife's law firm, in front of Judge Barkley. If I had been told the reality of the situation, I would not have signed the waiver and I would have requested that Judge Barkley recuse himself - and any anger he may have had would have been irrelevant, as you say. This is my point - I feel the public should be fully aware of this conflict of interest, so they may make an informed decision for themselves.
Thank you for reading my comments.
These two statements just don't make sense together:
"I signed the waiver based on Judge Barkley's statement that "a family member works with Mr Lawrence""
"I was unaware at that time that there was a conflict of interest."
The first one is problematic enough on its own..
You also wrote:
"I was unable to make an informed decision, because I was not told the full truth.
Adults are responsible for documents they sign whether they choose to inform themselves about what they are signing or not. You haven't said that you asked any relevant follow up questions, or that you were given false information, only that you made incorrect assumptions. That to me doesn't demonstrate that you were, as you claim, unable to make an informed decision, merely that you didn't.
I'm sorry that you had a disappointing outcome in court, but when you step as an amateur into an arena that people generally prepare for with years of schooling and professional training the odds of winning just aren't going to favor you. Fair or not, that is just the way it is.
My previous comments answer your questions in full - two previous comments on 2/10, one on 2/1, and two on 2/3. Please read those comments and perhaps you shall understand.
Judge Barkley's statement regarding "a family member works with Mr. Lawrence" would make one think of a distant relative in a menial position - not his wife who is a Full Partner to my adversary. The former would not be a material conflict of interest. The second situation - Judge Barkley's wife being a Partner to my adversary - is a material conflict of interest. And there was no disclosure whatsoever in the criminal case.
I stated that I felt it was inappropriate to question the Judge - I think the majority of people would feel the same. It is not the public's responsibility to ensure full disclosure from the Court. It is the Court's responsibility to make full and truthful disclosure to the public. This is validated by the statements of Jim McCauley, Ethics Counsel for the Virginia Bar. There is definitely the glaring appearance of impropriety with the manner in which Judge Barkley handled these trials.
Your position is that the public should pull any disclosure from the Judge that they feel is necessary to make an informed decision. That is absurd. It is the responsibility of the Court to make full and truthful disclosure of any and all conflicts of interest - or the Judge should recuse himself or herself.
Thank you for reading.
cookieJar, if I had $5.00 for every time a defendant or plaintiff signed a document in open court without reading or reviewing it first..... the city, state and feds would never have to contibute another nickel to me in retirement. This is just the way it works in courtrooms for whatever reason, the judge explains briefly what the document says and then asks the defendant or plaintiff to sign it. I watched this phenomenon play out in courtrooms in Charlottesville, Albemarle County and Greene County for almost three decades. People just don't understand that they can take the document and read/review it carefully before signing it.
While I basically agree that people are responsible for any document they sign, I do disagree when people feel pressured to accept a document at face value and sign it quickly. And this takes place in courtrooms nationwide on a daily basis.
Jessamy, the front of the bench in Albemarle is a large wooden rounded piece of trim. I seriously doubt the judge had you sign a document on a rounded piece of trim. Secondly, saying that you were afraid to anger the judge by trying to read what he was offering you to sign is a problem IN YOU, not a problem with the COURT. Your attorney friend is right, the fact that a waiver was required means that you COULD HAVE asked him to recuse himself and he WOULD HAVE. You didn't...so he didn't. Next, a criminal trial does not end with a "guilty verdict and an indictment". Your complete misstatement of the law is an indicator of how you probably botched your own civil trial. You might have even been the party in the right! The attorney on the other side might have objected to your best evidence because you didn't lay a proper foundation for it or something like that. Ideally, people wouldn't need attorneys to avail themselves of the court system, but when you are going up against someone else that has one, you're kind of crazy not to have one of your own. The law doesn't just boil down to who is "right", but who the evidence and the laws and the arguments SHOW is right, and if someone tied your hands with strategic objections and procedure...well, the "right" person might have lost. Fran Lawrence had the form because his firm is trying to protect the proceedings and move forward that day. Joyce, nothing I said indicates I am judge and jury, and your snide comment doesn't hurt my feelings, nor substantively rebut a SINGLE thing I said. Next question: why doesn't a person who fully confessed get found guilty? Here are the other possibilities besides a judge running rampantly roughshod all over the criminal justice system like Godzilla over Japan: 1. the person DIDN'T confess...after all, Jessamy has clearly exaggerated other parts of her story. 2. the thing that the person confessed to is not a crime. 3. there was no scintilla of evidence beyond the confession to corroborate the confession, as required by Virginia law. 4. the charge that was brought against the person was not the proper charge. 5. the statute of limitations had expired. 6. the Court did not have jurisdiction or venue over the subject matter or person. 7. The Commonwealth failed to prove one of the elements of the offense. 8. The subject matter had been previously adjudicated in some form, unbeknownst to the complainant. 9. the judge felt that what was charged as a criminal matter was actually a civil question. Okay...that's just 9 of them off the top of my head. So, umm, yeah, there ARE A LOT of other possible reasons other than: "the judge was clearly in bed with the defendant". Finally, Jessamy, you are missing a HUGE point here...all of your complaints go to the "APPEARANCE of impropriety"...and not too many people are disagreeing with you that the judge, in the future, should probably make a more explicit disclosure. But that is a FAR CRY from there being any ACTUAL impropriety. You are asking all the readers here to accept your conclusions of law when you are actually making MISSTATEMENTS of law in your very comments. Take the advice I gave you a long time ago...bring your own lawyer (find one that will take your case on a contingency basis...if you can't find one, that's an indicator that attorneys don't think that you ARE the party that would/should win!) to your appeal...you'll see it will go a lot more smoothly for you when someone who knows what to do in court is by your side.
And GBSOE, "People just don't understand that they can take the document and read/review it carefully before signing it." I think they taught me at least as early as 8th grade not to sign anything I hadn't read. Society should only have to teach people things so many times before we finally expect people to know those things.
Yeah, and KS is onto a good point there. If YOU are suing a civil respondent or defendant for money who is not countersuing you for any money, then the other party's lawyer probably IS charging an hourly rate, not a contingency fee or any kind of percentage fee. So the lawyer very likely makes the same thing win or lose, which puts the same amount of money into the firm either way to arguably make it back into his wife's year-end bonus so that she can dutifully hand it to her husband to spend on toys. The case would be more troubling if the firm represented a PLAINTIFF and the judge handed them a huge judgement. Under the facts of your case, I just don't see how the outcome of the case could even ARGUABLY affect the judge's financial bottom line. And that's because it couldn't. There's that difference between the "appearance of impropriety" and ACTUAL impropriety again!
To A Friend: I shall attempt to respond to your barrage of comments made between 11:26PM last night and 3:38AM this morning.
First, I have not exaggerated any part of this simple story. I have stated the facts exactly as they happened, from an individual's point of view who experienced them - and yes, an individual who is not an attorney. You have no legitimate basis to state otherwise. If you were there, then you know what happened was as described. If you were not there, then please do not accuse me of exaggerating anything. If, by being a non-attorney, I did not use the correct legal terminology, I apologize. The article and my follow up comments are intended to inform the public of this conflict of interest in General District Court so they are aware and do not confront an experience similar to the one I went through. It is not about my civil case. The civil case is on appeal. You can blame me in the civil case for not having an attorney, and you may very well be correct. I had stated in a previous comment that this situation probably would have gone differently had I been represented by a good attorney. However, I am unable to afford an attorney at this time. And no attorney is going to take a $5,000 warrant in debt case on contingency, regardless how solid the case. You know that as well as I do.
The Criminal trial, "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", was handled by the Commonwealth, so you can not use the "no attorney" argument in your insistent and bewildering defense of how Judge Barkley handled these trials.
1) The defendant confessed in full to the charges of Trespassing and Destruction of Property to the Police and to the Court. She also confessed on a phone message to me left after midnight the night of the crimes. This message was played for the Court by the Commonwealth.
2)The Commonwealth also produced evidence of the destroyed property and the fact that the farm on which the defendant trespassed was well posted as "Private Property - No Trespassing for any reason"
Your arguments regarding the "statute of limitations", "jurisdiction", "incorrect charge", "invalid confession", etc hold no merit - they simply do not apply to this case. And yes, I did sign the "waiver" on the Judge's bench - exactly where he had placed it for me to sign, after Mr Lawrence had handed it to him. I explained in my comment yesterday why I did not read the document thoroughly, so I shall not be redundant here. Kindly read my previous comments again, and you shall see I have addressed your comments on that matter.
My point is that I believe Judge Barkley should recuse himself from any and all cases in which his wife's law firm represent a party. This would avoid the appearance of impropriety. I say "appearance" because I do not presume to be in a position to say anymore. That is for The Virginia Bar and the Judicial Review Commission to decide. However, even Jim McCauley, Ethics Counsel for the VA Bar, states in the article:
"The judge is required to disclose, and all parties must consent, or the judge must recuse," says McCauley.
"Do you want the matter heard with bias, or do you want to further delay?" asks McCauley, who sees the dilemma Rouson's now facing.
However, McCauley also agrees that revealing the connection only as a "family member" doesn't sufficiently allow the parties to make an informed decision.
"The degree of the relationship should be disclosed," he says. "There's a big difference in what constitutes a family member, between a wife who's a partner and a second cousin who clerks."
Adds McCauley, "It matters."
Jim McCauley, an Ethics attorney for the VA Bar, makes my point clearly. And the "waiver" that you keep on about stated only "a family member worked in Mr Lawrence's firm" - not full disclosure of the degree of the relationship. Mr McCauley also states, "Do you want the matter heard with bias, or do you want to further delay?" Jim McCauley, Esq outwardly states that there will be Bias.
And the Judicial Review Commission, from their own Cannons, taken from their own website, state:
Under Canon 3E:
"A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or a personal knowledge of evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding."
Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply."
Buchanan v. Buchanan:
The judge must also consider the public's perception of his or her fairness, so that the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained."
I believe it is fair to say that Judge Barkley's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" and that Judge Barkley's behavior has damaged "the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system." It certainly has damaged my confidence in the General District Court. To avoid this appearance of impropriety and bias, and the damage to the public's confidence in the system: Judge Barkley should be recused from any and all cases in which his wife's law firm represents a party. It is that simple.
Thank you again for reading my position,
Jessamy Rouson
Actually Jessamy, my position is that it is not an especially good idea to do things that may have important consequences without having any idea what you are doing. That applies to signing documents, operating heavy machinery, performing medical procedures on yourself, handling explosives, or representing yourself in court.
You clearly haven't a clue about making a legal case, heck, you haven't even done a good job of making a case for yourself in this forum. Your apparent inability to understand and respond to "A Friend's" point that there are a lot of other possible explanations for the failure of your arguments to prevail doesn't lead me to believe you could either follow or present a sound legal argument. That coupled with your timidity about asking a judge questions that you feel are important says very loudly and clearly that you were out of your league in that situation.
""The judge is required to disclose, and all parties must consent, or the judge must recuse," says McCauley." You have stated repeatedly that this happened. You consented. Don't forget McCauley's other statement "she could have said she needed more time to think."
It is very understandable that you made a mistake because you felt intimidated, but intimidating the opposition is part of a sensible strategy in any conflict. You had enough self-asuredness to get yourself into the courtroom on your own but not enough to follow through. Consider yourself lucky you weren't rock climbing.
You lost, no surprise at all there, despite possibly having a case that could have been won by a professional. Live, learn, and move on. When someone hands you a document to sign, read it and make sure you understand and agree withs its terms before you sign it. It is that simple.
A Friend, you can say it until you're blue in the face. But very very very few people read everything word for word before they sign a document, especially when a judge or cop has just explained the content to you supposedly. People don't do it on a traffic summons on the side of the road any more than they do in a courtroom when a document is handed to them to sign. These are facts of life, plain and simple.
This "knowing better and not reading it anyway" attitude especially includes an electronic signature on the Internet nowadays too. Can you say you have read every word in "Terms & Conditions" on every document you have electronically agreed to (signed) on the Internet? Any person who answers YES to this question is simply not being truthful.
GBSOE: I don't quibble that people DON'T read, but I DO point out that the blame is on THEM and on no one else. Sure I've installed a piece of software or two without reading every word of the terms and conditions. Mostly because I used to read them all and I started noticing they all say the same thing, so I began to sort of rely on a "course of dealing" of software. Signing a document that a judge hands you is, for most people, a very different sort of transaction than what you go through every day, so it should be treated differently and more carefully. Even when I'm signing up for a membership for something I'm using for the first time, I WILL at least do a hard skim through the terms and conditions to make sure there's not something unusual I've never seen before in there. I know I won't have anyone else to complain to about it if I don't and I get screwed over it later. Jessamy you havent told us what the argument WAS that got the criminal case dismissed, and you are asking us to simply accept that it must have been because of bias...that is very unreasonable of you to expect we would just jump to the least likely explanation. You are also asking Judge Barkley to do FAR MORE than even the ethics counsel is suggesting. He points out that all parties can consent to his hearing the case...you are suggesting he just bar himself from any cases involving that firm whether all parties consent or not...why on earth would THAT be necessary? Your reference to the length of my comments and the time of their posting, prior to even attempting to address their substance, speaks volumes in my mind. It would be like making fun of my suit as your closing argument, rather than addressing the substance of the case.
To "A Friend", I had answered your question in my comment from 2/1:
"In regard to the criminal trial of Trespassing and Destruction of Property, Judge Barkley "reserved judgment" until a later date. This confounded the Commonwealth, as the case was clear, the evidence was overwhelming and the defendant had confessed in full. Just prior to 9am, the morning of Judge Barkley's decision in the criminal case, Mr. Lawrence slipped back into the Judge's Chambers alone. When he came back out into the courtroom, Judge Barkley appeared. Within a matter of no more than two minutes, he stated "There was a defense for these charges - Dismissed." And then Judge Barkley left the courtroom - it was his only appearance on that day, 10/19/10. Please check that fact if you doubt me. There is no Judge's order on record, other than DISMISSED - nor is there a transcript from General District Court. I checked on both.
Mr. Lawrence's only defense was basically - I paraphrase -"Trespassing is okay if it does not disturb the peace."
It is understood that breaking onto one's private property around midnight, removing a horse from the other stablemates, leaving farm gates open, and destroying property, all DISTURB THE PEACE. Mr. Lawrence's defense had no merit whatsoever. Judge Barkley surely is a good enough judge to have known that there was no merit to the defense. It was an extremely bizarre and erroneous decision. I can only surmise that Judge Barkley's relationship with Mr. Lawrence had an impact.
In summary. This is not "sour grapes" as some readers have stated. The civil case is on appeal. This is about a glaring conflict of interest which has an effect on the public, as well as an effect on the Attorneys of the Commonwealth and the Police who work endlessly to protect the public."
In "Cookiejar's" last comment, she did not seem to understand that "A Friend" was discussing the Criminal Trial, which was handled by the Commonwealth Attorney. I represented myself only in the Civil Trial, which is now on appeal. I agree with "A Friend" and "Cookiejar" that everyone should have an attorney representing them in court - if they are able to afford the cost. I am unable to afford the cost at this time. I do not profess to be an attorney. Any comments from "A Friend" and/or "Cookiejar" as to my lack of legal skills, would apply to any non-attorneys in the public who were forced to represent themselves due to cost restraints.
I train horses and support myself solely through this profession - I am not an attorney. I merely deserve to be paid the $5,000 owed to me by the defendant for eight months of hard work - and there is no dispute that I did the work and did it well. To avoid paying this debt, the defendant broke onto my place around midnight the night of the crimes, destroyed property, and removed the horse. Hence the Criminal Charges, to which the defendant confessed to the Police and the Court in full - plus on a phone message which The Commonwealth played for the Court. Mr Lawrence agreed in open court that the defendant, Laurel Olson, had confessed to the charges of Trespassing and Destruction of Property. He basically stated that the defendant was guilty of these charges. I leave it to the public to decide why Judge Barkley dismissed the case. This decision shocked the Commonwealth and the Police. I believe Judge Barkley lost credibility with that decision. He certainly lost credibility in my eyes.
I also agree with "A Friend" & "Cookiejar" that people should read documents thoroughly before signing. I have stated that previously. I explained the exact situation in an earlier comment, and shall not go through it again. As stated many times. the "waiver" said only what Judge Barkley had said in court, "A family member works with Mr. Lawrence". Had the waiver stated the entire truth - Judge Barkley's wife, Rhonda Quagaliana, is a Full Legal Partner to your adversary in this case, Mr Lawrence - then one could make an issue of the signed waiver. However, as per Ethic's Counsel for the VA Bar, Jim McCauley, "a family member" is not full disclosure and leaves a party unable to make an informed decision. I made a decision based on what I was told by Judge Barkley. As per the VA Bar and the Judicial Review Commission, it is a Judge's obligation to make full disclosure of a conflict of interest, or recuse himself or herself from the case.
Perhaps "CookieJar" and others would have grilled Judge Barkley with questions and attempted to attain more information from him - and good for them! My hat is off to you and I wish you the best of luck with that tactic! However, I personally felt that behavior would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the Court. I believe the majority of people would feel the same in my situation.
Please allow the public to decide if they would wish to be treated as I was treated in Judge Barkley's courtroom. Should someone be allowed to trepass on your private land in the middle of the night, destroy property, leave gates open endangering other animals, and remove a horse, disrupting the other stablemates in the process - all to avoid paying a bill which was honestly earned through eight months of intensive work? Because that is what the defendant did. Judge Barkley let the defendant walk away with his Dismissal. This was despite the best efforts and a solid presentation from the Commonwealth Attorney, and no defense which held any merit from Mr. Lawrence.
It is ultimately up to the people of this community to insist on a change if they believe it to be warranted. I believe the majority agree with me: "Judge Barkley's impartiality might reasonably be questioned in this situation and Judge Barkley's behavior in this situation is damaging to the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system."
To add, there was no disclosure whatsoever in the Criminal Trial, "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", regarding Judge Barkley's wife being a Full Partner to Counsel for the defendant, Mr. Lawrence. Not a word of disclosure from Judge Barkley and no waiver offered.
No waiver was offered to anyone in the criminal trial because there was no party with standing to request recusal other than the Commonwealth, who, I assure you, WAS aware of the judge's relationship and clearly was not concerned that there would be any bias at play. Next issue, I strenuously disagree with you that no attorney would take a $5000 case on contingency. If I thought I could book myself a third of 5 grand on a case that it looked like I would win in one or two appearances that didn't take more than an hour or so apiece, and the case wouldn't take more than a few hours' preparation, I would take the case. If it looked like a case the other person would win, I wouldn't take the case. Now, one last point. You've finally given me an idea of what Mr. Lawrence's defense was. I gather you were treating a horse that belonged to someone else, and kept the horse until the person paid their bill, and they trespassed onto your property and took their own horse back. Virginia courts have long recognized a tradition of allowing people to recover personal property that is held by someone else, occasionally even if the person trespasses to do so, so long as the entry onto the property did not tend to a breach of the peace. See Miller v. Harless, 153 Va. 228 (1929): "It is true that a mere trespass upon real or personal property, which is also the subject of a civil action, is not always a crime at common law; but it is a crime at common law if it amounts to a breach of the peace, or if it tends to or threatens a breach of the peace." This is not a legal theory that has been specifically codified, and probably rarely comes up, so it's not entirely surprising if the Commonwealth's Attorney WAS surprised at the ruling. Some of us remember old rules of thumb from law school and some of us don't. Clearly there are competing interests in your case, but the existence of this language in a Virginia case coupled with the fact the Commonwealth probably did not supply any authority to the contrary...well...don't you see how a judge could find a "reasonable doubt" without having to be corrupt to do so?
There may even BE countervailing authority, and I'm sure the Commonwealth was free to submit any briefs in support of their position during the time the case was recessed until it was called again for issuance of the verdict, but they probably did not submit a reply brief of any kind. What I'm saying is, I don't purport to say herein what the current state of the law is on this point, only that there IS legitimate authority that Mr. Lawrence apparently asserted. Unless the Commonwealth asserts some overruling authority, the court must follow the previous decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court. I'm sure the judge recessed the case to be able to read the opinion because he was actually HESITANT to simply dismiss it when a trespass had clearly occurred, and the trespass statute does not contain any exception on its face for a civil claim of right.
Deleted by moderator.
To "A Friend" - I'm new at these blogs, so I'll try again. The point was made very clear in Court by the Commonwealth that the defendant had disturbed the peace. Trespassing on well posted private land around midnight, destroying property, leaving farm gates open - endangering other animals, and removing a horse from it's stablemates in the middle of the night - upsetting those horses in the process, all Disturbs the Peace. Please refer to my previous comments. Mr Lawrence's defense held no merit and was discredited by the Commonwealth and the evidence. There was no plausible defense for the defendant's actions.
I stated I believed Judge Barkley lost credibility with this decision - certainly in my eyes. The Police and the Commonwealth Attorney would not have pursued this case if they did not feel strongly that crimes had been committed and deserved to be prosecuted. For all the exhaustive work the Police and the Commonwealth Attorneys do to serve justice in this community - and then to have a Judge rule against them in such a solid case, is disheartening to all. It sends a message to the public that breaking, entering, trespassing and destroying property on well posted private property is OK - even if these crimes totally Disturb the Peace in the middle of the night. This should be a major concern to the public as a whole. It has been stated in this forum that Judge Barkley is unable to vacate his decision in this matter, or declare a mistrial. I don't know why, but I'm not an attorney. And the Commonwealth is unable to appeal decisions. So where does that leave the public who have been violated by defendants which should rightfully have been punished in a Court of Law?
If a client were to break into your office at midnight, steal their files and leave your place in disarray - all to avoid paying your legal bill - I believe you would feel the need for justice and restitution. I also believe you would wonder how Judge Barkley could possibly rule in favor of the defendant who committed these crimes when the prosecution had presented a solid case, the defendant had confessed, and the evidence was clear.
The title of this article is: "Judge's Wife - Should relationship be revealed" I adamantly believe it should, and I believe the public agrees.
Here on January 31, 2011, Andrew Wynham stated:
"This is a travesty and I pray some action is taken. I agree that stating that you have a family member working for a firm does not represent to ANY degree the level of connection the judge has with the firm. Stating that the person appearing in court could have queried further is pathetic. When you are in the position of having your case heard before a judge, you are vulnerable and weak. You don't know the system, and at best, you try to be and appear polite and unchallenging. I've been before judges where I've tried to represent my position politely and clearly, but it is received as a challenge and you can feel the animosity and resentment.
This is a fight worth fighting.!
On February 1, 2011, Bill Marshall stated:
"The judge must also consider the public's perception of his or her fairness, so that the public's confidence in the integrity of the judicial system is maintained."
Well Judge your behavior certainly causes me to question your fairness. I guess since I am a member of the public you screwed up....
The entire court system in Charlottesville is a little too cozy.
And there are many more readers who agree. Please allow the public to decide the answer to the question this article raises regarding Judge Barkley. The public should demand the level of integrity in their Judicial System that they deserve. This includes not allowing defendants, who have broken laws and violated a citizen's privacy, to walk away with no justice being served by the Courts. The Courts should serve the law abiding citizens of this community. Judge Barkley certainly did not serve the Commonwealth or this law abiding citizen well in this case.
Jessamy, sorry...there's hardly a lawyer in town that would agree with you and that's why you've had trouble finding an attorney to take your case on contingency. "The peace" is something that exists between HUMANS, not between horses, and not between humans and horses. If there were no people around at midnight when she did it, then there was essentially no peace to be broken. Judge Barkely would have been the very first judge in Virginia to rule otherwise if he had, as far as I'm aware. This does NOT send a message that trespassing is legal. Your example about my office would have the additional fact of breaking and entering a building in the nighttime (a felony!), all to get the client file, much of which I HAVE to give the client even if they HAVEN'T paid their bill. I would never withhold THEIR papers, even if I had a claim against them for an unpaid fee. That is a separate civil claim that I would have to sue on. So they would have no reason to break in to take what I would give them in the morning without argument. Disturbing the other horses by taking their "stablemate" away is something that would have happened anyway when and if she finally paid you. Leaving the gates open IS, in part, the trespassing, and conceivably COULD have led to a breach of the peace, but it apparently didn't. If all of your horses were wandering around the middle of I-64 getting hit by tractor trailers and causing mayhem because the gates were left open, then, yes, that could have been a "breach of the peace". The standard for what constitutes a breach of the peace is NOT the fact that you saw it in the morning and weren't very happy about it. The question is really: did she commit the trespass minimally to get something she owned, and did she get back away from the property without causing any kind of altercation with another person at the time? That's a pretty narrow question, and not one that's going to open the floodgates as you suggest. If you don't like that state of the law, petition your delegate to change it. The Commonwealth cannot appeal a criminal dismissal because of a little thing we call the U.S. Constitution which says that a person shall not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. You will have to push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution if you want to change that one, but I think the rest of America would ask you kindly not to. Jessamy, there was ONE weird thing about your case...I'll give you that. But it's unreasonable for you to pin EVERYTHING that went against your wishes for this case on that ONE weird thing, when there was CLEARLY a defense here.
Since you posed a hypothetical, consider mine: a man goes out at night into a horse pasture miles away from where there are any humans and yells at the moon at the top of his lungs. Is he guilty of disturbing the peace? No...because no humans were disturbed. Our laws do not exist to protect the peaceful sleep of raccoons.
And, believe me, the cops and prosecutors get used to losing a few now and then just like we defenders do. We GET OVER IT.
To "A Friend". First, I have not attempted to get any attorney to handle my civil case on continguency. I don't believe they would on a $5,000 warrant in debt case, despite the fact that the case is solid. I work hard in my profession and do not have the time to go around begging - nor do I want to. I would not insult the good attorneys I know and embarass myself by asking them to take a small case on continguency. It is a straightforward case and the defendant owes me the money. There is no dispute that I did the work and cared for the horse for 8 months. Hopefully the truth shall be heard and justice shall prevail.
In the horse business, as per the Sheriff, a stableowner has an automatic lien on a horse if there is a bill owing. Unlike your files, the defendant can not remove the horse until the bill is paid in full. The defendant trespassed and she did break and enter the stable at night - close to my personal home and close to my help's apartment. The Police, the Commonwealth and the attorneys I have spoken with all felt the defendant should have been convicted. I'm sure if this had happened to you at your personal home, you would agree that the defendant should have been convicted.
Second: There were people on the farm when the defendant broke in and trespassed on my well posted private property - Posted: NO TRESPASSING FOR ANY REASON. VIOLATORS SHALL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. I live on the farm in a house close to the stable. My help lives directly across from the stable. The defendant came around midnight equipped with bolt cutters of some type to break into the stable. She destroyed property, endangered animals and definitely Disturbed the Peace which existed on the farm before her entry. The Commonwealth proved the criminal charges well beyond a reasonable doubt. I realize that as a defense attorney, you are going to side with defense attorneys. However, the Attorneys of the Commonwealth have tremendous experience in prosecuting criminal cases. The defense had no merit - even Judge Barkley seemed to think it was ridiculous. However, he still dismissed the case. The Courts are to serve the public. The public does not want defendants walking away after trespassing on their private land and destroying their property. You may not agree, but you would agree if it happened at your personal home. I also do not think it is fair to say all attorneys would take your position. I have not found that to be true.
You had stated that there was one wierd thing in this criminal case, but you were not clear as to what it was. So what was the "wierd thing" in your opinion? I would be interested to know.
As part of the public, I have read this article and the numerous comments with great interest. The Hook has done an outstanding service to the community by exposing this black mark in our Judicial System. How can a plaintiff and/or the Commonwealth get a fair ruling when the defendant is represented by the Judge's wife's law firm, in front of that Judge? Yes - this relationship should be fully revealed and fully disclosed in Court, so that one could demand a Judge with no bias.
I have a horse farm and have had trouble with people skipping out on the bill. I am also an author of four books and a professional photographer of top racehorses. I have had problems with people infringing on copyrights and so on. The Courts are the only source of recourse. How could this travesty have happened in Albemarle General District Court? A defendant who trespassed at midnight onto a well posted private farm, destroyed property, left gates open and removed a horse to avoid paying a bill, is allowed to walk away from the criminal charges of Trespassing and Destruction of Property by Judge Barkley - after confessing to the police and the Judge? And the defendant is represented by Judge Barkley's wife's law firm? This isn't just wrong, it's sickening.
Judge Barkley stated "a family member worked with Mr. Lawrence" and the "waiver" said the same. What kind of full disclosure is that? "A family member" paints a totally different picture than "The defendant is being represented by my wife's law firm. Mr. Lawrence is a Full Partner to my wife." I know I would be demanding a new Judge immediately.
I know Jessamy Rouson via the horse business, and I can tell you she is an internationally respected rider and trainer - one of the best. She also was voted one of "The Distinguished Dozen" in this community for her endless work with animals through her rescue group, "ANIMAL HAVEN". Ms Rouson started the mission of major change in the local animal shelters in 1998. Now Albemarle has one of the very best No Kill shelters in the entire country. Anyone who was there knows Ms. Rouson had a great deal to do with that shelter's turn around into a truly great shelter.
Ms. Rouson works as hard as anyone I have ever seen. She built up everything she has from nothing, through hard work and talent. And she did it alone. This defendant, Laurel Olson, was very lucky to have had Ms. Rouson work with her horse for several months. And then the defendant pulls a stunt like this to avoid paying a meager $5,000 bill and gets away with it! That is criminal. Judge Barkley and all should be put to the carpet and made to answer for their outrageous mistreatment of both the law and the victim here. This is a disgrace! How are the police and the Commonwealth attorneys supposed to serve justice and keep our community safe with Judges like Barkley on the bench ruling in favor of his wife's firm, rather than for justice in the Commonwealth?
I wish Ms Rouson luck in her civil trial and certainly hope justice is allowed to prevail there.
Concerned Citizen, you are too late to the rodeo. It's over. See all the above comments for a hashing out of everything you brought up, and then stop by the Commonwealth's Attorney's office and ask THEM if they think Judge Barkley is a fair judge....I GUARANTEE you that every one in there will tell you he is. I don't care if your house was NEARBY, Jessamy...you didn't catch the person that night because you didn't even hear her, which means SHE DIDN'T BREACH THE PEACE!!! I don't know what it's gonna take for you to get that through your head! Just because you were unhappy about it when you discovered it HOURS LATER doesn't make it a breach of the peace. That's a legal term of art...not a phrase that you get to inject whatever your personal feelings about your own case are. Feel free to keep taking your legal advice from sheriffs who have never gone to law school or studied law. Feel free not to "insult" lawyers by offering them a chance to make a quick $1,667. Feel free to keep thinking that every negative thing that happens in court is because everyone is corrupt and not because you are up against a seasoned attorney in an arena you have no training in. PLEASE though...at least agree to be bound by the finding of the next court...if the Circuit Court doesn't rule in your favor, and it is a bench trial too,...please finally agree that judge Barkley didn't rule incorrectly. Or will you invent a reason why the CIRCUIT court must be corrupt too? You are right that some courts have historically found a lien on treated horses. BUT...you didn't file a lien...I'm assuming. AND, it doesn't change the fact that the SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA ruled that this fact pattern was not necessarily a criminal trespass. So for following a ruling of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Judge Barkely MUST be corrupt, right? And, geesh...how is this not obvious? The one weird thing was that the judge is married to a law partner of your opposing counsel. That's IT. And nothing more. Because there is NO evidence that that connection affected any of his rulings in ANY way. If you have complaints in with the bar or the Judicial Inquiry Review Commission or what have you, I guarantee they will rule the same way. Like me, they will probably recommend a more detailed disclosure, but they will surely not find any misbehavior in any rulings on this case. I guarantee you NONE of the Commonwealth's Attorneys have "tremendous experience" prosecuting cases in which a peaceful trespass occurred for someone to take their own horse. I'm betting that's the first time that type of case has come up during the career of everyone in their office. Not just that, some of the people in that office have far fewer years of practice experience than, say, Fran Lawrence. Why would there even BE defense attorneys if we didn't win cases against prosecutors often enough to justify our professional existence? You think the fact the Commonwealth lost a case is proof of judicial corruption?! Ridiculous! YOU even said to blame the negative outcome in your civil case on YOU and on the fact you didn't have an attorney. I'M just telling you from someone who studied the law and has practiced in it for YEARS that it sounds like the judge made the correct ruling on the criminal case. But of course, as someone with no legal training whatsoever, you clearly know much more than I do about all of this. Never mind the small coincidence that the judge happened to agree with me, and the Virginia Supreme Court did too, and that Fran Lawrence appears to have cited exactly the same case I would have if I was defending his client. We're all corrupt, and it's all a BIG conspiracy! I'm done arguing with you because it has become obvious that it's pointless. You are a person that believes what she wants to believe, even in arenas that other people know more what they are talking about than you do. I'm sure you ARE owed at least SOME money, maybe even all of what you are asking for... but it also sounds like you are too busy to find an attorney that works on contingency, so it sounds like this money isn't that important to you anyway, since you are not even taking the precautions that your defendant is taking (like putting in the effort and FINDING an attorney to take her case). So please, continue disagreeing with attorneys about the law, continue trying to use the law without the help of someone that knows what they are doing, and then continue blaming an innocent judge as corrupt everytime it doesn't magically work out for you! Don't worry about the fact that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to law, and that you are only just trashing an innocent judge's career. I, for my part, am thinking about trying to break in some mustangs this weekend and put some shoes on some horses, and mend a broken leg on a carriage horse. I don't know ANYTHING about horses, but I've seen some TV shows with horses on them, so how hard can it possibly be for me to just jump into someone else's trade and get it exactly right on my first try without help from anyone that knows what they are doing? I'm sure horse-husbandry is as easy to dabble in as law!
You call yourself "A Friend". I was curious as to whom exactly are you "A Friend"? You clearly are not "A Friend" to the public or to the victims of crimes. You clearly are not "A Friend" to the Commonwealth Attorneys and the Commonwealth they protect. You state you are a defense attorney, and it is obvious you are "A Friend" solely to defense attorneys and the defendants whom you represent - the very people who violate law abiding citizens.
Your unnecessarily rude response to my comment makes it clear to all why attorney jokes are so prevalent. Your relentless belittlement of the victim in this case, Jessamy Rouson, serves as a belittlement of the entire public. And you don't stop there. You mindlessly belittle the Commonwealth Attorneys - the very people working long hours to protect this community. You ramble on trying to make a case about a lawsuit in which you played no part and were apparently not even present in the courtroom. You make "your case" based solely on a defense attorney's point of view, and are apparently too narrow minded to see anyone else's point of view. And of course it is blatantly obvious that you want to brown nose the Judges, so you can accomplish what you get paid for - getting indicted defendants released, free of the punishment they may very well deserve. Not only are you happy with violating the basic statutes of this state, (and others), which protect its citizens from perverted, self-serving interpretation of LAW, but you have either missed or ignored the very crux of this case.
This article was written for the public as a whole - not solely for defense attorneys. The article, and Ms Rouson herself, have asked the public to decide in regard to Judge Barkley's behavior. I have as much a right to voice my opinion, as you do to exhaustingly pontificate your pompous views. Although you apparently believe your views are the final word - and state so with your crass comment, "The rodeo is over" - that is not the case "Friend". Shocking as it may be to your dangerously over inflated ego, the people of this community have the last word. Your offensive comments have been a disgrace to the legal profession and an honest revelation regarding your lack of character.
I commend the Hook on exposing this atrocity and keeping the ball rolling so the public may comment as to their views.
You call yourself "A Friend". I was curious as to whom exactly are you "A Friend"? You clearly are not "A Friend" to the public or to the victims of crimes. You clearly are not "A Friend" to the Commonwealth Attorneys and the Commonwealth they protect. You state you are a defense attorney, and it is obvious you are "A Friend" solely to defense attorneys and the defendants whom you represent - the very people who violate law abiding citizens.
Your unnecessarily rude response to my comment makes it clear to all why attorney jokes are so prevalent. Your relentless belittlement of the victim in this case, Jessamy Rouson, serves as a belittlement of the entire public. And you don't stop there. You mindlessly belittle the Commonwealth Attorneys - the very people working long hours to protect this community. You ramble on trying to make a case about a lawsuit in which you played no part and were apparently not even present in the courtroom. You make "your case" based solely on a defense attorney's point of view, and are apparently too narrow minded to see anyone else's point of view. And of course it is blatantly obvious that you want to brown nose the Judges, so you can accomplish what you get paid for - getting indicted defendants released, free of the punishment they may very well deserve. Not only are you happy with violating the basic statutes of this state, (and others), which protect its citizens from perverted, self-serving interpretation of LAW, but you have either missed or ignored the very crux of this case.
This article was written for the public as a whole - not solely for defense attorneys. The article, and Ms Rouson herself, have asked the public to decide in regard to Judge Barkley's behavior. I have as much a right to voice my opinion, as you do to exhaustingly pontificate your pompous views. Although you apparently believe your views are the final word - and state so with your crass comment, "The rodeo is over" - that is not the case "Friend". Shocking as it may be to your dangerously over inflated ego, the people of this community have the last word. Your offensive comments have been a disgrace to the legal profession and an honest revelation regarding your lack of character.
I commend the Hook on exposing this atrocity and keeping the ball rolling so the public may comment as to their views.
Concerned Citizen: I'd like to thank you for taking the time to post your comments. I don't believe I can improve on your response to "A Friend". Apparently breaking and entering and destruction of property, do not "Disturb the Peace" in his view - making trespassing on one's private property at midnight absolutely OK. If one were to review the case that "A Friend" is refering to, I would bet that case would not apply to "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". As I had said earlier, even Judge Barkley seemed to think it was absurd. It is for the public to decide why Judge Barkley dismissed "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson".
I am confident that the public would want a defendant prosecuted and convicted by a Court of Law, if that defendant trespassed on their private land, broke into a building, destroyed their property and endangered their animals - plus removed a horse to avoid paying a hard earned, very fair bill.
"A Friend" has voiced his opinion as a self-professed competent defense attorney. Personally, I have heard enough. There is no need to belittle the public, those who take the time to post comments, and the victim in this case. I found "A Friend's" comments about the Attorneys of the Commonwealth audacious and offensive. The Commonwealth Attorneys and the Police provide a great service for the community. We should be extremely grateful to have them. I don't see where "A Friend" offers any service to the law abiding community as a whole. His entire focus appears to be on serving the defendant, and belittling the public and Commonwealth Attorneys who sent that defendant to Court. I would bet if "A Friend's" home was broken into and his property destroyed in the middle of the night, the Police and the Commonwealth Attorneys would be the first ones he would call. Or would he say, "Well, I slept through the ordeal, so it's absolutely legal and the trespassing party was within their rights. No problem here whatsoever!" I sincerely doubt that would be his reaction.
I know some truly great attorneys who do not agree with "A Friend's" position on this matter. "A Friend" is not representative of all attorneys. I thought "Backwoods Southern Lawyer" made a very informative and respectful comment on 2/1. I also thought GSOE made some excellent points, as did many other members of the public.
I'd like to thank The Hook for bringing this conflict of interest in Albemarle General District Court to everyone's attention, and all members of the public who have taken the time to express their views. I look forward to hearing more from you.
Jessamy, It must have been difficult for the judge to keep himself from laughing out loud if what you have written here is indicative of the quality of the case you presented to him.
Jessamy, I bet YOU'D be upset if they broke into your house too! Good thing THEY DIDN'T! Not one of my comments about the Commonwealth's Attorneys was "audacious" or even "offensive". Your overreaction to my comments is indicative of the size of any error that occurred in your case! You and "Concerned Citizen" both confuse expertise with arrogance. It's part of the latest American sociological trend of confusing intelligence with "elitism". Sure, the public is free to make up it's own mind. I just thought they'd appreciate the input of someone that actually knows something about the legal system. Oh...and when your son gets arrested for something he didn't do, you'll figure out pretty quick who defense attorneys are "A Friend" to!
And Concerned Citizen, I see you didn't really read my previous comments with any depth at all. To "brownnose" the judge, wouldn't he have to know who I am?
Nobody else would anonymously offer here your transparently injudicious comments. The truth is obvious.
Thank you Will Jones! It could not have been said better!
CookieJar: The case we were discussing was handled by the Commonwealth - not by me. You are having difficulty grasping that fact. I do not understand your animosity. The article raised the question: Should the fact that Judge Barkley hears cases represented by his wife's law firm be revealed? If you think that everything is fine with how Judge Barkley handled this issue and that this conflict of interest does not need to be fully disclosed, that is your opinion and you have a right to express it. Ethics Counsel of the VA Bar does not agree. There is no need for you to belittle me or anyone else - particularly those in the community who are unable to afford representation by an attorney, and must do their best to in order to recover money owed to them. People represent themselves in warrant in debt cases all the time. If someone owed you $5,000 and you were able to afford an attorney to represent you, I think that would be a wise way for you to go. If you were unable to afford an attorney, I wish you luck representing yourself.
"A Friend": My farm is my home. So you are saying that a person trespasses on your private property in the middle of the night, equipped with bolt cutters, breaks into a building and destroys your property - that is OK by you. Well, that's your opinion. I doubt the public or most attorneys and Judges would agree with you.
The Attorneys of the Commonwealth can decide if your comments regarding their skills are audacious and offensive. You showed no respect for the vital service the Commonwealth Attorneys provide for our community - or the Attorneys themselves. Will Jones did a wonderful job responding to your comments and brings up a good point. If you are the ever knowledgeable attorney you profess to be, why don't you reveal your name?
And "A Friend" - since you have berated me for using the incorrect legal terminology - it is not "treatment" of a horse at issue here. It is being paid the money I am owed for the "riding, training and care" of the defendant's horse for 8 months. "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" was not a case of defending a person charged with crimes she did not commit. Even Mr Lawrence admitted the defendant confessed to the crimes in full to the Police.
Get this through your head: it was THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT THAT SAID THIS IS NOT A CRIME! Duh. What about that don't you understand? It is a rule of being a General District Court Judge in the Commonwealth of Virginia that you are required by law to follow the opinions of the higher Courts, like the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Virginia. The Judge was just doing his job and he was doing it exactly how the law says to do it. You don't like the law. Therefore you say that the judge is corrupt. That is you being incredibly injudicious, audacious and offensive. Recognize, if you POSSIBLY can, the difference between the Supreme Court saying what the law IS, and the judge or I saying what the law SHOULD BE...again...I say, if you POSSIBLY can, which I am starting to doubt. And if you can't grasp the simple concepts I've been saying this whole time, then I must reiterate you would really do better with an attorney helping you in court. And for Pete's sake...must I really tell you a THIRD time...a THIRD!...that the reason I'm not putting my name on here is specifically BECAUSE I am not trying to butter up this judge or curry favor with him by defending him from what I perceive to be a very unfair slander upon his ethics and conduct. You and your supporters have accused me of trying to brownnose him by letting him know who I am, and of some other subterfuge for NOT letting anyone know who I am. You can't have it both ways. Let me boil down your whole complaint: "Boo on this judge for doing what the higher up court told him to do! He must be corrupt!" Oh, and by the way, Will Jones...way to sound mysterious! What truth are you talking about? That the judge who followed the law and did what the higher court told him to do was corrupt? You disagree with me and you recognize I am intelligent, therefore I am "injudicious". Whoa! Busted! I'm sorry for being smart and right and not in complete agreement with you about your conspiracy theory. An actionable conflict of interest is like malpractice...both require proof that the error occurred AND that the error changed the outcome of the case for the worse. It's that latter part you can't prove on the criminal case, and you have already conceded as your own fault for not having an attorney on the civil case. So you accomplished something. You brought to light that a disclosure should be more explicit in the future. You did not prove that it had any affect on the outcome of your case. Simple as that. You will refer it for review, I'm sure, to someone or to many someones...all of whom agree will agree with me. I'm sorry you had a negative experience; the only thing I've tried to tell you, which you disagree with, is that it didn't have an affect on the outcome of your case. Your case played out exactly as the Virginia Supreme Court dictated. Now Occam's razor is a principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What is more likely? That a judge who ruled exactly the same as the Virginia Supreme Court ruled was following the law, or that he was risking his entire career over a $5000 case of his wife's firm where the ruling of the court wouldn't even affect how much money the firm earned from the case? In other words there was no financial incentive whatsoever for the judge to throw any case here. The firm made the same fee either way on the criminal trial (criminal defense attorneys are not ALLOWED to charge a contingency fee) and on the civil trial (since they very likely charged an hourly rate to represent a respondent-only). You've already said to blame you for the civil trial but blame the judge for the criminal one. Well in the criminal case, he followed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
And, hey...maybe the law should be changed...I don't know. But the judge isn't allowed to just change the law. He is only allowed to follow the law. If you want the law changed you have to petition your legislature.
Mr. Friend, I think Mr. Jones is in we might charitably say an "oblique" fashion suggesting that you are the judge. As for Ms. Rousson, it has somehow escaped her notice that the article was actually about her own civil case. If she missed that, then she is clearly coming at this issue "obliquely" as well. You would have a better chance of making your point if you were writing to a brick I'm afraid.
The article was actually about the question of a judge's failure to reveal the intimate nature of his relationship with the accused trespasser and thief's counsel, and his failure to recuse himself.
"Just prior to 9am, the morning of Judge Barkley's decision in the criminal case, Mr. Lawrence slipped back into the Judge's Chambers alone. When he came back out into the courtroom, Judge Barkley appeared. Within a matter of no more than two minutes, he stated "There was a defense for these charges - Dismissed." And then Judge Barkley left the courtroom - it was his only appearance on that day, 10/19/10. Please check that fact if you doubt me. There is no Judge's order on record, other than DISMISSED - nor is there a transcript from General District Court. I checked on both."
The underlying criminality of the beneficiary of Judge Barkley's peremptory "munificence" is not in question: the police and Commonwealth Attorney would otherwise not have pursued justice in the matter.
The judge's integrity is in question, to say the least. Those unable to see this are blind to, or complicit in, a transparent, manifestly corrupt, "quid pro quo."
Thank you again Will Jones for eloquently defining the issues!
"A Friend": You need to read your case: "Miller v. Harless, 153 Va. 228 - Va: Supreme Court 1929." "Miller v. Harless" is hardly a defense for the defendant, Laurel Olson. To the contrary. Obviously Judge Barkley didn't read "Miller v. Harless" either. He just accepted whatever Fran Lawrence said about the case - which was far from the entire truth - and ignored the evidence, the confession of the defendant, and the solid presentation by the Commonwealth.
"Miller v. Harless" concerned a charge of "False Arrest" against the police officers who arrested the party who had trespassed and destroyed property. Hence, the trespassing party was the Plaintiff in "Miller v. Harless". The VA Supreme Court found that this party had in fact "TRESPASSED", as they had "DESTROYED PROPERTY", which "THREATENS A BREACH OF THE PEACE".
In this particular case: "The party went into the field of growing alfalfa and trampled it down and injured it, this was a misdemeanor at common law". And this took place during the daytime - not around midnight as was the case with "The Commonwealth v. Laurel Olson".
This is the "defense" you find so worthy? That is amusing! Upon review of "Miller v. Harless", the case applies to "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" in that the defendant, Laurel Olson, should have been convicted for "Trespassing and Destruction of Property", as charged by The Commonwealth. Clearly, trespassing on well posted private property in the middle of the night, equipped with bolt cutters to intentionally break and enter a building, destroying property, and endangering animals, "THREATENS A BREACH OF THE PEACE". Read for yourself:
Miller v. Harless, 153 Va. 228 - Va: Supreme Court 1929
"It is true that a mere trespass upon real or personal property, which is also the subject of a civil action, is not always a crime at common law; but it is a crime at common law if it amounts to a breach of the peace, or if it tends to or threatens a breach of the peace."
"The party went into the field of growing alfalfa and trampled it down and injured it, this was a misdemeanor at common law"
"The rule which we have just stated applies to the facts of this case. The conduct of the plaintiff and his companion was exasperating, tended to violence and a breach of the peace, and hence was a misdemeanor at common law for which they were liable to arrest. 245*245"
"It follows from what we have said that we are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, to be had according to law."
"A Friend": "Miller v. Harless" also states: "Instruction "G" was based upon Code 1919, section 4479, also enacted for the punishment of unlawful trespassing on land as a misdemeanor. That section, as amended, Acts 1914, page 498, among other things, provides that "if any person, unlawfully, but not feloniously, take and carry away, or destroy, deface, or injure any property, real or personal, not his own," he shall be fined not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars."
"In addition to this, Code 1924, section 864, referring to the powers and duties of the board of visitors of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, specifically provides that they shall have power "to prohibit entrance to said property of undesirable and disorderly persons, or to eject said persons from said property, and to prosecute under the laws of the State trespassers and persons committing offenses on said property."
The fact that my farm was well posted: "NO TRESPASSING FOR ANY REASON - VIOLATORS SHALL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW" serves as warning to any trespassers, including the defendant, Laurel Olson. In addition, Laurel Olson and her trainer had been warned via phone and e-mail, not to come on the property without a cashier's check for the $5,000 owed They were told to make an appointment to pay the bill and pick up the horse.
Note that in 1929, a fine was charged up to $500 for "Destruction of Property". The crimes in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" were committed in 2010 - eighty one years later. The fines should be substantially more for "Trespassing and Destruction of Property" eighty one years later. It was also interesting to realize that these crimes may be prosecuted in a civil trial as well.
In summary: "The rule which we have just stated applies to the facts of this case. The conduct of the plaintiff and his companion was exasperating, tended to violence and a breach of the peace, and hence was a misdemeanor at common law for which they were liable to arrest. 245*245"
"It follows from what we have said that we are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, to be had according to law."
As per "Miller v. Harless", in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", the defendant should have been been convicted as charged by the Commonwealth. The defendant should have been fined for her actions as well.
And this was the "defense"! Imagine what the prosecution was like in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson".
Jessamy, you have presented a commendably cogent counterargument to the rule I stated from the Harless case. Now...and stick with me here, because this is the fundamental point...I don't think that the Commonwealth counter-argued that case as well as you just DID! The defense cited a case and stated a rule and the judge adjourned the case for a time, during WHICH time the Commonwealth's Attorney should have read that case as well and written a counter-argument...especially since Fran and I were both quoting a single sentence of that case taken out of context. If the Commonwealth did not submit a reply brief, (and there's an easy way to tell...just go to the court clerk's office and ask to see the file for that case; it will be in there if they did, and if it's not, it means they didn't) then they were the ones that dropped the ball here. You've never even stopped to consider that the Commonwealth could have litigated the case more aggressively and possibly won. Your very argument that you made right here might have won your case...if ANYONE would have just presented it to the court! You can't expect the judge to agree with an argument that no one presented to him. Now before you get all upset at me like you usually seem to, recognize that I'm giving you a compliment about the counter-argument you made here to the quote I cited from the case...I really am. And I'm saying you really might have won if that argument had been presented. You probably expected the Commonwealth to do whatever was necessary to rebut a case cited by the defense, but I bet they didn't do it. I bet they even DID do a lot of preparation going into the case, and I bet they argued and litigated pretty aggressively in front of you in court. But I bet you'll pull that file from the clerk's office and see no reply brief from them, meaning they never read that case and tried to tear it apart to the judge. By the way, most of the other things you cited again are not suspicious...it's not entirely unusual for a docket to only have one case on it, especially if it was just going to be a single case with a more functionary purpose, like issuance of a ruling. There is nothing insidious about a lack of other cases docketed for that day. There would also only be a "record" if YOU had requested a court reporter in advance. That's always the case in General District Court. That's why it's called a "court not of record". A lot of what looks suspicious to you is just the way the practice works and there's nothing crooked about it. As a person that works in this system, I'm just telling you this. You are free to consider the source and decide for yourself to accept or reject anything I say...and I suspect I know which you will do, but you should especially read this comment from me...read it twice. Because I mean the compliment I gave you, and I do mean for you to check the court file and see if the Commonwealth DID bother to file a reply brief or not. If they didn't, they kinda surrendered at the very end of the game. Learn the lesson there and put the blame where it belongs...not on the judge. Especially if you represent yourself in Circuit Court, you need to remember that you can't let things like that happen...if someone cites a case and the court recesses even overnight...you BETTER have read that case by the next day and be ready to explain how it DOESN'T support the other side and actually DOES support your side. If you misplace the blame in the criminal case onto the judge, you may be overlooking the real mistake that lost the case, and if you want a better outcome in your civil appeal, then you have to do EVERYthing better than it has been done thus far in the criminal case or the first round of the civil case. Again...good job on your analysis of the Harless case! It was actually the thing you've said in all of your comments that sounded most like a lawyer talking, and a pretty good one at that. I just think you ripped that case apart harder than the Commonwealth did!
Out 5k, violated by trespass, theft, and betrayal by one whose valuable horse you kept safe and sound, and improved: and an exposed corrupt judge, or his striker, now anonymously wish to mollify moral outrage with honeyed words.
Are the Egytians and Tunisians more clever than we?
Yeah, stir the pot, moron. Who cares if you have no idea what you're talking about? Jessamy, read my post from yesterday carefully. My comments could actually help you in your appeal. Will's comments will give you a warm fuzzy and absolutely NOTHING you can use. Your choice.
Thank you "A Friend" for your kind compliments. I merely read the case, as Judge Barkley should have done. I believe the Commonwealth felt that their presentation in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" clearly demonstrated that the "Peace had been Disturbed", and anymore would have been over kill - right or wrong. I believe their impression, and mine as well, was that Judge Barkley thought it was a ridiculous defense. Yet he dismissed the case, which is the point that I believe Will Jones is making. Why dismiss the case, when that was so glaringly an unwise decision? Will Jones' point is that Judge Barkley gave his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence, excessive leeway.
I did not think the fact that Judge Barkley had only one case on the docket that day was suspicious. It was only mentioned in describing the events that took place. Also, I have now learned that there is no court reporter, unless one is requested. As most courts have court reporters, I assumed there would be a record. Now I know, for future reference in Circuit Court, and shall be sure to have a court reporter present.
What I did find "suspicious" was the fact that Fran Lawrence slipped back into the Chambers alone before Court commenced, the morning of the decision in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". Even the Judicial Review Board had issue with this, as ex-parte meetings are not allowed. Judge Barkley should have insisted that the Attorney for the Commonwealth was present. I believe this is the point Will Jones was making - the blatant comraderie between Judge Barkley and his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence.
So I thank you for the education regarding the need to read these cases. If I am representing myself in Circuit Court, I shall request any cases sited to be printed out, so I may take the time to read them. I thank Will Jones as well for expressing what should have been obvious to Judge Barkley. The defendant, Laurel Olson, should have been convicted as charged by the Commonwealth.
Mr. Jones, as a proud and unrepentant peddler of seditious libel, viz. your absurd website, you would have far more to fear from a system in which an accusation of criminality on the part of those in power were all the proof the courts required for finding the accused to be guilty. Yes, it does seem that not only the Egyptians and the Tunisians, but in fact the bulk of humanity is indeed more clever than you.
Fear G-d, by Annuit Coeptis, as did America's whig Founder, and one need fear nothing else. The curse comes not causeless.
Is that a quote from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban, Will? The Circuit Court is court of record, the General District Court is a court not of record. Judges wrestle with certain issues when and if the Commonwealth doesn't raise a certain argument. There are times that the judge will be drawn to mentally "supply" an argument the Commonwealth failed to supply himself, but there is also a reservation to mentally supply something that one side failed to supply, because that's KIND OF getting close to acting biased towards one side of the case. You haven't seen as many breach of peace cases as the judge has, or even as many as most of us attorneys have. I'm just trying to share my experience with you, if I heard the facts of this case a hundred times in a row with different people in it, I would always predict that it would play out by the defense arguing claim of right made it not a trespass, and the prosecutor arguing that SOMETHING that happened there constituted a breach of peace and therefore put the case back in trespass territory. And I'm not weighing in at all on what the law SHOULD be, but I would always GUESS that the judge would find a reasonable doubt. Criminal law has a sort of built in concept that a very close case goes to the defendant; that's the tie-rule in a country that has a "presumption of innocence". I do think that a more frontal assault on the old Supreme Court case via a brief MIGHT have made a difference. We'll never know for sure because double jeopardy means...The End. As far as going in chambers...we ALL do that. There is also no law that we can't be friends with a judge. I've had lunch with judges, run errands with them, talked with them in chambers. I've never discussed the merits of a case with a judge without adverse counsel present, and I think any judge, including Judge Barkley, would slam the brakes very quickly on any such conversation if an attorney initiated it. The public can make up their own mind. But it's only fair for them to hear the argument for the other side of the coin too, so they can have all the information and arguments they need to consider the whole issue from both points of view.
Mr. Jones, Those like you who falsely claim godliness and pass the profanations and lies against him are enemies of God and America.
Those flacking for treason call the proven truth "seditious libel."
"A Friend": I strongly disagree with you regarding ex-parte meetings - and so does the law! I see no other reason for Fran Lawrence to have slipped back into Judge Barkley's Chambers PRIOR TO COURT, OTHER THAN TO DISCUSS "THE COMMONWEALTH V LAUREL OLSON", ON WHICH A DECISION WAS PENDING THAT MORNING.
If Mr. Lawrence wanted to discuss a social event, such as lunch, he could have met with Judge Barkley AFTER the decision had been rendered in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". Remember Judge Barkley had only that one case on the docket that day. Rather than argue with me, read for yourself:
Judicial Ethics Handbook
3-510. General rule.
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judge's activities. NMRA 21-200.
3-520. Scope of rule. This general principle frequently applies as much to off-the-bench conduct as to conduct on the bench. Rothman, supra, §100.200. Both the appearance of impropriety and impropriety itself are prohibited, regardless of a good faith defense or exonerating facts.
The appearance of impropriety and public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judge does or does not do, but what do others think he has done or might do. AO 88-8.
This objective standard is needed because public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Commentary to NMRA 21-200. For example, a judge who speaks at length with a litigant in a pending case appears to be giving that party an advantage, even if in fact the conversation is unrelated to the case. This rule "places an especially heavy burden on the rural judge because of the intense public scrutiny, but rural communities like urban communities still need to be assured that their judges are impartial and have integrity." 1990 Code, Annotation to 2A.
5-200. Applicable Law.
NMRA 21-200 and 21-300(B)(7).
5-300. Introduction.
"Nothing is more dangerous and destructive of the impartiality of the judiciary than a one-sided communication between a judge and a single litigant. Even the most vigilant and conscientious of judges may be subtly influenced by such contacts." Rose v. Florida, 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992). A judge's dilemma is remaining fair and unbiased while administering the court and living in the community.
5-400. General rule.
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding. NMRA 21-300(B)(7).
5-100. Checklist
• You engage in conversation with a party, witness, attorney or other person interested in the subject matter of a case pending in your court.
All parties are not present and absent parties did not receive notice.
The subject of the conversation relates, either directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the case.
You are not authorized by law to make the communication.
5-812. Special meetings. Judges should discourage practices that appear to favor lawyers over litigants, or certain lawyers over others.
A California municipal judge had a practice of visiting socially in chambers with favorite attorneys on days they appeared before him in court. It was not established that pending cases were discussed on those occasions, but the practice created at the least an appearance of impropriety. Kennick v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance, 787 P.2d 591, 609 (Cal. 1990).
5-700. Good faith or non-lawyer status not a defense. The importance of maintaining the impartiality of the courts outweighs the judge's ignorance or good faith in making the communication. Good faith is not a defense to a charge of violating the rule against ex parte communications. The fact that a judge is not a lawyer is not a defense.
Several judges received letters of caution advising them about ex parte communications and in particular those meetings or conversations that might give the suggestion of being ex parte. Judges should avoid the very appearance of wrongdoing even when the judge might be seeking to further the cause of justice in good faith. JSC 89-I2.
My point precisely Mr. Jones. Hence your foolishness in calling for a regime which would squeeze you for your insolence as though you were a carbuncle upon its backside.
"A Friend": On the matter of Judge Barkley's bias towards his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence, please read for yourself from The Judicial Ethics Handbook:
6-100. Checklist.
Investigate early and recuse yourself early!!!!
When a case is assigned to you, consider:
• Do you have strong personal feelings, either positive or negative, about any party or attorney that could affect your ability to be impartial?
• Is your spouse an attorney in a firm or agency involved in a case? If so,
has your spouse:
>>entered an appearance in the case;
>>inspected the file in the case; or
>>discussed the case with anyone in the firm
As Judge Barkley's wife, Rhonda Quagliana, is a Full Partner to Fran Lawrence, and they often work cases together, it would be difficult to believe that the criminal and civil trials against Laurel Olson were not, at the minimum, discussed at some point. In my view, Judge Barkley's behavior during the trials and his verdicts made clear that bias was prevalent. I believe the majority of the public agrees.
By the law, Judge Barkley is obligated to make a total full disclosure of this issue prior to hearing any more cases in which his wife's firm represents a party, and have complete consent from all parties once they absolutely understand the situation - Or, he could simply recuse himself and avoid the appearance of impropriety and bias.
In a previous comment I had stated that, as a stable owner, I had an automatic lien on any horse which the owner owed money for the care and training of that horse. You berated me, because I had said this was from the Sheriff. Well, I looked it up. Read for yourself:
2006 Virginia Code § 43-32 - Lien of keeper of livery stable, garage, marina, etc
A. Every keeper of a livery stable, hangar, tie-down, marina, or garage, and every person pasturing or keeping any horses or other animals, vehicles, boats, aircraft, or harness, shall have a lien upon such horses and other animals, vehicles, boats, aircraft, and harness, for the amount which may be due him for the towing, storage, recovery, keeping, supporting, and care thereof, until such amount is paid.
This is all the more reason why Laurel Olson should have been convicted as charged by the Commonwealth in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". Along with trespassing on well posted private property in the middle of the night, euipped with bolt cutters, with which she broke and entered a stable; destroying property; endangering animals; and threatening to breach the peace - the defendant had no right to take her horse until the bill was paid! The question this raises is: Why did Judge Barkley make such an erroneous decision? The public shall decide for themselves. Please remember:
"The appearance of impropriety and public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judge does or does not do, but what do others think he has done or might do. AO 88-8."
Jessamy Rouson, I have lost interest in this thread because of all the long winded arguments from a certain person. :)
But, just for what it's worth..... I can tell you it is not unusual for any lawyer to slip into judge's chambers before court starts. Actually, it's a pretty common practice. They discuss anything and everything under the sun. During my decades of service to the courts, and being present in tens of thousands of these pre-court encounters between judges and attorneys, I never once heard them willfully conspire amongst each other in ANY case. On the morning in question, I would be surprised if Fran Lawrence even mentioned the upcoming case to the judge.
Ms. Rouson, The truth is so obvious, your position so righteous: know that only representatives of the judicial false elite would futilely attempt to parry with you. The Curse shall be on the soon enough. We, the sovereign People, are hundreds of millions; they are some hundreds of thousands. Soon enough the "pseudo aristoi" of which Mr. Jefferson warned will be fully expropriated and banished. Until then fight on for G-d is on your side. Be well.
[on them]
Thank you Will Jones & GSOE for your support and comments!
GSOE, no one shall ever know what was discussed when Fran Lawrence slipped back into Judge Barkley's Chambers, just prior to the decision in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". As I have stated, I don't see what else they would be discussing at 8:50am, just prior to the 9am Court decision on this criminal case. I am guessing, and I emphasize guessing, that Fran Lawrence showed Judge Barkley the one line he took out of context from "Miller v. Harless". As I proved in my comments of 2/17, "Miller v. Harless" was actually a VA Supreme Court case which should have prosecuted the defendant, Laurel Olson. Yet Judge Barkley came to the bench literally minutes after Fran Lawrence returned to the courtroom, and said, "There was a defense for these charges - DISMISSED". Judge Barkley stated nothing more regarding this horribly erroneous decision.
"A Friend" stated in his comment to me of 2/19, "You haven't seen as many breach of peace cases as the judge has, or even as many as most of us attorneys have." In that case, Judge Barkley, with all of his years of experience on the bench, should have known that "Miller v. Harless" was not a defense for the defendant's actions, but actually grounds to convict the defendant, Laurel Olson, as charged by The Commonwealth.
I hear what you are saying regarding ex-parte meetings between Judges and attorneys. However, the fact that "it happens all the time", does not make it legal. Please read for yourself from the Judicial Ethics Handbook:
5-200. Applicable Law.
NMRA 21-200 and 21-300(B)(7).
5-300. Introduction.
"Nothing is more dangerous and destructive of the impartiality of the judiciary than a one-sided communication between a judge and a single litigant. Even the most vigilant and conscientious of judges may be subtly influenced by such contacts." Rose v. Florida, 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992). A judge's dilemma is remaining fair and unbiased while administering the court and living in the community."
5-400. General rule.
"A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding. NMRA 21-300(B)(7)."
"A California municipal judge had a practice of visiting socially in chambers with favorite attorneys on days they appeared before him in court. It was not established that pending cases were discussed on those occasions, but the practice created at the least an appearance of impropriety. Kennick v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance, 787 P.2d 591, 609 (Cal. 1990)."
To "A Friend": Virginia Code § 18.2-119 defines the crime of trespassing as follows:
"If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136."
"The issue in many trespassing cases is twofold: has proper notice been provided that the person is not welcome in a particular area and exactly what area is the person prohibited from entering. The code identifies potentially four different ways in which notice of no trespassing may be accomplished. The four ways are: by oral request by a person in authority, by written request by a person in authority, by a posted sign in an area where it may reasonably be seen, by court order pursuant to specific code sections, even if the order is ex parte. An ex parte order is an order entered by a judge where the person who is the subject of the order is not present at the time the order is entered."
In my comments of 2/17, I stated:
The fact that my farm was well posted: "NO TRESPASSING FOR ANY REASON - VIOLATORS SHALL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW" serves as warning to any trespassers, including the defendant, Laurel Olson. In addition, Laurel Olson and her trainer had been warned via phone and e-mail, not to come on the property without a cashier's check for the $5,000 owed. They were told to make an appointment to pay the bill and pick up the horse.
We have already determined that "Miller v. Harless, 153 Va. 228 - Va: Supreme Court 1929", was hardly a defense for the defendant, Laurel Olson. To the contrary. As per this case, the defendant should have been convicted as charged and fined for the Destruction of Property, as well as Trespassing. As per "Virginia Code § 18.2-119", the defendant, Laurel Olson, should also have been fined up to $2,500 for trespassing, and possibly have recieved a sentence of up to 12 months in jail.
Are you still unable to admit that "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" should have ended with a decision from Judge Barkley of "Convicted as Charged by the Commonwealth" - plus fines and whatever sentence the Court deemed appropriate? As an attorney, you know this to be true. As an experienced judge, I believe Judge Barkley knows this as well.
"A Friend": And yes, in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", the Commonwealth showed Judge Barkley pictures of the POSTED signs on the front of the property and the driveway into the farm. (The signs are all over the farm, which was explained to Judge Barkley) The Commonwealth also showed the evidence of the destroyed property and the e-mail I had sent. In addition, they played a recording of a phone message the defendant had left at 12:22AM, shortly after the crimes had been committed. On this message, defendant Laurel Olson, stated she had recieved my phone message, (regarding bringing a cashier's check for the $5,000 owed before picking up the horse), and she admitted to taking the horse. Plus, we have the full confession by the defendant to the Police and the Court, which included coming equipped with some type of bolt cutters with the intention to break and enter the stable. I believe the Commonwealth proved their charges of Trespassing and Destruction of Property well beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus the defense had no merit, as Judge Barkley should have known all too well. I also believe there was no defense available in law for this defendant's criminal actions.
Jessamy, your post of 10:55 a.m. contains material illegally taken from the website of the Bose Law Firm. Notice of copyright is clearly posted at the bottom of each of its pages via the words "site and contents copyright 2006, all rights reserved."
You have taken the work of someone else and used it for your own purposes without even having had the decency to cite your source. Your use was not among those categorized as "fair use" of copyrighted material.
You have done something illegal, identified yourself by attaching your own name, and done it in a very public venue. It's quite ironic that you should do that while arguing vigorously for the punishment of someone that you claim has done something very similar.
Buncha creepy lawyers...
Shakespeare, Mr. Jefferson, and the Tory Oak are each correct.
The person posting as "A Friend" exemplifies why attorneys are universally loathed. Let's see: Complete lack of paragraphs and overuse of caps generally typifies the writing style of excitable females, and this person is most likely a local defense attorney. Mrs Judge, is that you?
Whichever side of this debate one falls on, Mr Lawrence exiting the judge's chambers, followed by a sudden and puzzling dismissal, would give anyone pause. Regardless of whether anything untoward happened or not, it's up to the judge and attorneys to go out of their way to show complete transparency. If they give the appearance of acting in anything less than an aboveboard manner then yes, eyebrows will be raised.
Thank you "Reality Check" for your supportive comment. You have brought up an interesting possibility which I had not considered, with your: "Mrs Judge, is that you?". I guess we shall never know the identity of "A Friend", but he/she has been very quiet since I posted the actual laws which discredit his/her lengthly arguments. I had asked "A Friend" for his/her current opinion on Judge Barkley's verdict, now that he/she has read the law. I was looking forward to hearing what "A Friend" had to say, after he/she has berated me, along with the Attorneys of the Commonwealth.
Thank you Will Jones for your continued interest in this matter!
"CookieJar": Thank you for your concern, but you are incorrect. I found the "Virginia Code § 18.2-119" on Answers.com, which merely states the law as it has been written. It is not copyright infringement to site a law written for the public. Once again, I do not understand your personal animosity toward me. I don't know who you are, or if you are an attorney. Perhaps you are a friend to the defendant or the Judge, or perhaps you are the defendant herself. Whoever you are, you should know that your personal insults to me are insulting to all of the public who has been in this situation, or has an interest in avoiding this situation. In addition, your comments are not relevant to the questions posed by this article: "Judge's wife: Should relationship be revealed?"
Deleted by moderator.
Jessamy, you misunderstand the rules about ex parte contact completely. It is only an "ex parte proceeding" if the case is discussed. If you weren't back there and didn't hear what was discussed, then you can't say that the case was discussed. What is more logical? If a judge and a lawyer were going to have an unlawful ex parte conversation about a case, would the attorney go into the judge's chambers from a doorway in the open and public courtroom, and return back out through it in full view of everyone there, or would they be a little more sneaky about it, like talking on the phone or meeting the night before somewhere? You are completely wrong that "the law disagrees" with me. I MIGHT be a LITTLE more familiar with the law than you, just like you MIGHT be a LITTLE more familiar with animal husbandry than me. If the attorney and the judge did not discuss the merits of the case, it is not an "ex parte communication". I understand that your conspiracy theory goes too deep for you to be able to agree with me. Under your theory, a lawyer and a judge can't be friends if they EVER have cases that they both work on. That is simply NOT the law. You can contact the state bar ethics counsel and ask for yourself, if you don't believe me. When they corroborate what I'm telling you, you can start cooking up your next conspiracy theory that the judge must have gotten to them TOO. This is not a case where the practice has become okay because it happens so often...this is a case where it is okay because THEY ARE NOT DICUSSING THE CASE. You, yourself, said you were GUESSING that they were. In a criminal court, you can't find someone else guilty because you are GUESSING that they are guilty...you need some evidence. The court of public opinion is not that different. You believe the majority of the public agrees with your conspiratorial view of this case; I would bet that the majority of them would NOT agree with you. Finally, the existence of a lien does NOT change the common law ruling that a person may make a minor trespass to recollect their property. The existence of a lien means that YOU also could not have been prosecuted for unlawfully retaining the horse. You needn't explain anything to me about your posted property or the defendant's full confession; you are missing the point that I have already made painfully clear: that the defense cited language from the Virginia Supreme Court that not all trespasses are illegal (even though they ARE trespasses!) Please stop quoting page-long and OBVIOUS statutes and ethical rules that I and every other attorney already pretty much know by heart. I understand those rules, and it's becoming painfully clear to me that you don't. There is NO LAW against congeniality between an attorney and a judge; there is no law that says you can be congenial with a judge AFTER your case is over but not BEFORE. P.S.: Gasbag, hilarious that you agree with what I say, but that you got disinterested because I bothered to say it. Reality Check, your comment is an example of why you are probably universally loathed in your personal life. It's regrettable that you mistake superior knowledge for arrogance. But then again, that seems to be the flavor of the year in America these days...anyone with an education is "elitist". P.S.: on what study do you base your sexist conclusion that use of capital letters indicates a female writer? Oh...you just made that up? Well, I guess you kinda undermined your own argument. P.P.S.: ARE attorneys universally loathed? Jessamy seemed to be singing the praises of the Commonwealth's Attorney pretty hard, even though they dropped the ball at the end of this case. Jessamy, did you ever do what I said as far as pulling the court file to see if the Commonwealth bothered filing a rebuttal brief? I'm guessing not. Will Jones...thank you for your continued "magic woooooooooords", as George Carlin used to say about similar quasi-religious quackery. Everybody's theories about my identity and absence were wrong, by the way...I got a little bored trying to shine little into a black hole myself.
oops...I meant: "I got a little bored trying to shine a little light into a black hole"
"A Friend": No one shall know what Judge Barkley and Fran Lawrence discussed in Chambers, the morning just prior to the hasty and bewildering decision in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson". And that is the point! As "Reality Check" pointed out:
"Whichever side of this debate one falls on, Mr Lawrence exiting the judge's chambers, followed by a sudden and puzzling dismissal, would give anyone pause. Regardless of whether anything untoward happened or not, it's up to the judge and attorneys to go out of their way to show complete transparency. If they give the appearance of acting in anything less than an aboveboard manner then yes, eyebrows will be raised."
Once again, please read for yourself and take particular note of "Rose v. Florida", 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992) and "Kennick v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance", 787 P.2d 591, 609 (Cal. 1990). Please also note:
Judicial Ethics Handbook
"The appearance of impropriety and public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judge does or does not do, but what do others think he has done or might do. AO 88-8."
3-510. General rule.
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judge's activities. NMRA 21-200.
3-520. Scope of rule. This general principle frequently applies as much to off-the-bench conduct as to conduct on the bench. Rothman, supra, §100.200. Both the appearance of impropriety and impropriety itself are prohibited, regardless of a good faith defense or exonerating facts.
The appearance of impropriety and public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judge does or does not do, but what do others think he has done or might do. AO 88-8.
This objective standard is needed because public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Commentary to NMRA 21-200. For example, a judge who speaks at length with a litigant in a pending case appears to be giving that party an advantage, even if in fact the conversation is unrelated to the case. This rule "places an especially heavy burden on the rural judge because of the intense public scrutiny, but rural communities like urban communities still need to be assured that their judges are impartial and have integrity." 1990 Code, Annotation to 2A.
5-200. Applicable Law.
NMRA 21-200 and 21-300(B)(7).
5-300. Introduction.
"Nothing is more dangerous and destructive of the impartiality of the judiciary than a one-sided communication between a judge and a single litigant. Even the most vigilant and conscientious of judges may be subtly influenced by such contacts." Rose v. Florida, 601 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1992). A judge's dilemma is remaining fair and unbiased while administering the court and living in the community.
5-400. General rule.
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding. NMRA 21-300(B)(7).
5-100. Checklist
You engage in conversation with a party, witness, attorney or other person interested in the subject matter of a case pending in your court.
All parties are not present and absent parties did not receive notice.
The subject of the conversation relates, either directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the case.
You are not authorized by law to make the communication.
5-812. Special meetings. Judges should discourage practices that appear to favor lawyers over litigants, or certain lawyers over others.
A California municipal judge had a practice of visiting socially in chambers with favorite attorneys on days they appeared before him in court. It was not established that pending cases were discussed on those occasions, but the practice created at the least an appearance of impropriety. Kennick v. Comm'n on Judicial Performance, 787 P.2d 591, 609 (Cal. 1990).
5-700. Good faith or non-lawyer status not a defense. The importance of maintaining the impartiality of the courts outweighs the judge's ignorance or good faith in making the communication. Good faith is not a defense to a charge of violating the rule against ex parte communications. The fact that a judge is not a lawyer is not a defense.
"A Friend": Under Code of Virginia¸§ 18.2-188.1:
It is a crime in Virginia for the owner of a horse to remove their horse, or arrange to have the horse moved, from a facility with the intent to defraud or cheat the owner of the facility. A horse owner can be charged with a crime if they take their horse off the property, when they owe fees and/or costs accumulated related to the upkeep, support, training and care of the horse. As an attorney, you should know this.
We have established that "Miller v Harlass" was not a defense argument, but in fact a prosecution argument, and that yes, the defendant "Tended to and Threatened a Breach of the Peace."
If you know all of these laws, as you say you do, why do you continue to argue such ridiculous points and insult everyone who disagrees with you? You still have not answered my question from 2/20:
"Are you still unable to admit that "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" should have ended with a decision from Judge Barkley of "Convicted as Charged by the Commonwealth" - plus fines and whatever sentence the Court deemed appropriate?"
As an attorney, you know the defendant should have been convicted as charged. As an experienced judge, I believe Judge Barkley knows this as well.
The ex-parte meeting between Judge Barkley and Fran Lawrence has been covered by other comments and the laws stated in the Judicial Ethics Handbook. The laws are quite simple to understand. You can defend your meetings with judges to the Bar, should you ever be called to do so. As an attorney, you don't need to defend your ex-parte meetings - or Fran Lawrence's exparte meetings - to me. You don't know exactly what Judge Barkley and Fran Lawrence discussed that morning. Nor do you know that they did not in fact discuss "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson", and Mr. Lawrence's one line, taken out of context, from "Miller v Harlass". Regarding Judge Barkley and Mr. Lawrence meeting in Chambers just before the decision was rendered, you are forgetting the standpoint of the public perception:
""The appearance of impropriety and public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, raise issues that must be viewed from the standpoint of the perception of the public. The question is not what a judge does or does not do, but what do others think he has done or might do. AO 88-8."
Jessamy, Nothing mentioned anywhere so far has the defendant being charged with violation of § 18.2-188.1 of the Code of Virginia. The criminal charge was for Trespassing and Destruction of Property. Your case was a civil case, not a criminal case.
The argument that got the criminal case tossed is that what was done isn't a crime. There is no "confession" to something that isn't a crime. Consult your legal dictionary if you would like.
The section quoted from the decision in Miller v. Harless states "It is true that a mere trespass upon real or personal property, which is also the subject of a civil action, is not always a crime at common law; but it is a crime at common law if it amounts to a breach of the peace, or if it tends to or threatens a breach of the peace."
That may not be a good argument, but really all it has to do is to be better than the opposing argument. If the opposing argument failed to attack the relevance of what was cited and focused instead on the breach of peace when clearly there was none to be breached, then it would obviously be the weaker argument and would justly lose. You haven't yet mentioned a prosecution counter-argument to that of the defense.
You stated above: "We have established that "Miller v Harlass" was not a defense argument, but in fact a prosecution argument, and that yes, the defendant "Tended to and Threatened a Breach of the Peace."" Actually all that has been done is that you have made that statement a few times. You have established nothing because you haven't supported your assertion with fact.
The court has through a long series of decisions reaching far back into history established what it means to breach the peace. Your imagined definition of that term is completely irrelevant to the court, since for one thing the court wasn't hearing your arguments at the time. An argument could possibly have been made and perhaps was made that somehow the peace was breached in a place that was not open to the public at a time when there was no one else around, but if that was done, it was quite a stretch to begin with and was obviously unsuccessful.
Did you file a lien? Did you file it properly and give proper notice to the defendant? If not, then you had no right to keep the defendant from taking her horse home with her. That is really pretty simple. It doesn't mean the defendant doesn't owe you money, but you haven't written anything about what argument you made to the court or what evidence you presented to demonstrate that, instead you have focused on completely irrelevant aspects of the whole affair.
If you spent time in court talking about the taking of the horse rather than the money that was supposedly owed to you, then obviously you would lose that case. Did you have contracts, documents, witnesses to support your claims? There has been no mention of any of that so far, which makes me suspect not.
I'm still not seeing any evidence of bias on the part of the judge.
...which is why the People need once more overthrow the corrupt, contemptible, and blind tory treason now usurping Our Sovereignty.
CookieJar: It is becoming apparent to me that you are either a friend or relative of the defendant, or you are the defendant herself. Whoever you are, if your intention is to argue on behalf of the defendant, (and the Judge who rendered, in many people's opinion, an erroneous decision in her favor), I suggest you allow Fran Lawrence to do the arguing. Mr Lawrence is far more qualified than "CookieJar" - whoever you are. I believe Mr Lawrence and I would agree on that point.
Let me summarize Citizen, Will Jones, and Jessamy's arguments all in one: "Rabble rabble rabble rabble!" Citizen, you're right...we won't kow what Barkley and Lawrence said to each other that day..or the next day, or the day after that, or today, or tomorrow. Should we just go ahead and make it illegal for them to ever talk to each other again? But then of course some other corrupt attorney will just start bribing the judge so we better go ahead and make it illegal for him to talk to ANY attorney ever. Of course then attorneys will just send some agent over to talk to the judge on their behalf, so to be safe, we better make it illegal for Judge Barkley to EVER talk to ANYONE. Will Jones...pfft! Umm...if you're worried about the Tory party still, you better put a tinfoil hat on. The Tories have brain microwaving technology. Jessamy...from a lawyer's point of view, I have to say cookiejar summarized the legal proceedings quite accurately. You mistake your dislike of the outcome for proof that anyone that restates it is inept or biased, or the opposing party herself. Your reasoning that anyone that fails to agree with you is related to your defendant or IS the defendant shows that your reasoning does not function properly. Take a logic class to learn just ow many steps you are missing. Someone whose reasoning is as slipshod as yours probably shouldn't be presenting her own case without counsel and certainly is not someone who the public should trust for legal analysis on this issue. You STILL haven't said if you checked the court file to see if the Commonwealth ever bothered to file a reply brief to the case that won the issue for Mr. Lawrence. Talk about not being able to admit things. Is there a reason why you haven't even checked? Or is it that you DID check and you just don't want to admit that the Commonwealth never bothered to file one? If you refuse to even check, the public can weigh that fact accordingly in deciding whether to trust your analysis of the case. Hell, I might go check it out one of these days, if you won't! Oh, yeah, and ditto what cookiejar said...sorry I hadn't already presented you with a defense for a crime that was never charged. As a defense attorney, I have this CRAZY habit of only preparing defenses for what IS charged, not for what ISN'T. Of course, the lady COULD have been charged with the statute you cited, even in ADDITION to the trespassing charge. The Commonwealth's Attorney could have made that happen for you. Oh but wait...you said the Commonwealth didn't MAKE any mistakes...
Deleted by moderator.
Rather than call the righteous "whig" the present day pseudo-aristoi effeminately complaining of "rabble" now cry "tin foil." Plus ca change...
"upon hearing of President Kennedy's assassination" by the Roman Catholic, Knight of Malta-led CIA (Viz. Jury Judgment: Hunt v. Marchetti, 824 F. 2d 916 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1987).
Those disinterested in legal research may simply tune into Turner subsidiary TruTV's "Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory," where the truth of Dallas and 9/11 is finally being broadcast to millions.
May G-d save America that Annuit Coeptis be restored and Our Light to the nations rekindled.
@Will Jones-- though our politics couldn't be further apart, your last post made my day.
@ A Friend-- I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, ma'am. My comment stands. I'll add that if you think that influence and power don't count for much in our local court system, then you're woefully, mayhap willfully, naive.
"A Friend": I hope your legal arguments and briefs are sounder - and I certainly hope they are more skillfully executed - than what you have displayed in your comments. (Have you ever considered using paragraphs, so your comments are not so tedious to read? And you accuse others of "rabble". That is amusing! Read your own comments.)
You profess to be an attorney. Yet you have not cited one law or case to defend your comments - other than "Miller v Harlass", which you touted so proudly as a defense, until I looked it up. You clearly had never read that case - and neither had Judge Barkley, despite taking the case "under advisement." For a refreshing change, you actually complimented me on my comments regarding that case. You profess great "expertise" and insult every person who disagrees with you, and yet you exhibit no "expertise" whatsoever. You are attempting to offer a legal analysis to the public, but are unable to refute the laws when they are cited or devise a valid legal argument.
I am not attempting to offer "legal analysis" to anyone. I am merely citing the laws as I research them. I believe these laws are of interest to anyone who has ever been in my situation, or wishes to avoid my situation. And your sole response to everyone is to insult them. The Hook offers this fabulous forum for the public to discuss and debate a number of issues. I don't believe they intended for a self professed "attorney", or anyone else, to insult their readers when he/she is unable to create a productive argument.
I had answered your question regarding a brief from the Commonwealth in my comment of 2/18: "I believe the Commonwealth felt that their presentation in "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" clearly demonstrated that the "Peace had been Disturbed", and any more would have been overkill - right or wrong. I believe their impression, and mine as well, was that Judge Barkley thought it was a ridiculous defense." So the answer is no. I did not go to the courthouse to see if the Commonwealth had filed a brief, because I don't believe they did.
You have refused to answer my question: "Are you still unable to admit that "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" should have ended with a decision from Judge Barkley of "Convicted as Charged by the Commonwealth - plus fines and whatever sentence the Court deemed appropriate?" As an attorney, you know this to be true. I'll take your non-answer as a yes, since you have not stated one valid legal argument to the contrary. As an experienced judge, I believe Judge Barkley knows "The Commonwealth v Laurel Olson" should have ended with a conviction as well. Judge Barkley dismissed the case, which in my opinion, and that of many others, showed tremendous bias towards his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence. Hence, the title of the article. "Judge's wife: should relationship be revealed?" I believe the public has answered, "Yes!"
Will Jones and Reality Check have voiced their opinion on this matter, and have done a fantastic job countering your personal insults. Perhaps attempt to respond with an intelligent comment which offers some legal validity.
My God! is this still going on. Jessamy girl, you lost. In the courtroom and here. Move on with you're life.
Jessamy, you're pretty dumb to insult me in your answer and then get on my back for insulting you. And since you lack the computing power to understand your own case's proceedings...let me connect the dots for you...YOU came up with a decent rebuttal to the case a while back. The Commonwealth never did. The judge took the case under advisement, affording the Commonwealth a chance to read the case and rebut it....and they never did. It is not the judge's job to make your case for you, or to make the Commonwealth's case for it. To answer your insipid question: YES, I am ABLE to admit the judge should have found the defendant guilty, and yet I do NOT admit that the judge should have found her guilty, because they shouldn't have. This was not a breach of peace as most ably evidenced by the fact that no human even discovered it happened until hours later. Now I'll admit, it certainly broke your "peace" hours later...so badly in fact, that you are still whining about it weeks after you lost...miserably...TWICE! Oh well. So you lost. And as annoying as you are, I have to say I couldn't be happier about it. I'm glad you at least have the moral support of masons like Will who uses antiquated non-words like "aristoi" to delude himself that he is aware of some centuries old powers steering your case. What he thinks passes for "effeminate" says more about his own sexuality than anything about me, considering I'm a DUDE. But that's okay...this is an enlightened day and age, and even Will's preferences are tolerated nowadays. Now let me conclude in your writing style (and I will start a new paragraph since it distresses you if I don't):
We have already established that you didn't know what you were doing in your civil case and that the Commonwealth didn't bring all the criminal charges they could have, and dropped the ball on the single charge they DID bring.
I assume since you didn't respond to my statement that Judge Barkley mustn't be allowed to talk to anyone ever again, that you either don't perceive how ridiculous your statements about what he should and shouldn't be allowed to do is, or you DO perceive how ridiculous it is, and you are trying to divert attention away from your shabby arguments. In a refreshing change, you thanked me when I paid you a compliment, but you failed to even understand the compliment...i.e. that you did what the commonwealth didn't, and unfortunately for you, you did it several weeks too late. Could I parse through that case and differentiate it's facts from those in your case and show why it STILL shows your defendant should have been found not guilty, despite your rebuttal analysis? Probably. But then, I would be responding to an argument that was NEVER RAISED in your case. And what's the point in that? Sure if your side had done it's job, Fran would have had to work a little harder, but you guys didn't MAKE him work any harder. Instead, you did a lackluster job that YOU felt was sufficient, never stopping to think that you should maybe do a job that the JUDGE should think was sufficient instead. The fact that he heard a case quoted and adjourned the case at bar, and it never dawned on you...hmm, that case must have sounded important to the judge...maybe we should read it and respond to it. Instead you guys decided..."ahhhh...why bother? It's enough that I think I should win. And besides, I'm sure the judge will read that case and look for any way he can to interpret it in my favor." Jessamy, it's just SOOO good that you went into animal husbandry instead of law. Because you're REALLY bad at law. One can only hope you're better with animals. Oh, and listen to this: did you know that sometimes Fran Lawrence's clients get found GUILTY?! By Judge Barkley!!! I've even seen it happen! Oh, and you also didn't tell me if you asked the Commonwealth's Attorney if they think the judge is crooked. I mean, you think so much of them, so I'm sure their opinion would matter to you. Why haven't you asked them that question? What are you hiding, Jessamy?
Will, we have already established that you think capital letters are somehow "feminine" so here's something for you to pleasure yourself to tonight: THE TORIES AND THE WHIGS ARE GONE. YOU NEED TO FIND A NEW CONSPIRACY THEORY. Wow. Look at all those luscious feminine capital letters, huh? Makes me hot just thinking about them. I'm guessing if you feel you can guess gender this easily and yet come up so incorrect, you've probably made a few mistakes in dimly lit bars and had some surprises later in the night at home.
Jessamy, I would say that JenSilv is a member of the public, and I would say her point of view kinda undermines your claim that the public agrees with you; ditto MY point of view and cookiejar's. Quit yer cryin, and put this case behind you. Your appeal is probably going to play out exactly the same way, because you don't listen to ANYONE. It would probably be pointless for you to have an attorney, because you wouldn't listen to a thing they told you anyway. Please, if you are going to respond to me, at least have the decency to cut and paste about 3,000 words from the Virginia Code, and a few thousand more from the Harless case again, as well as pointing out the fact that if even one crackpot from the public agrees with you then you are clearly right, regardless of how many DISAGREE with you. Also, make sure you mention how my comments are insulting, and then tell me how my brief-writing skills must be terrible and how I must be a bad attorney and several other things that IN NO WAY consititute (hypocritical) insults.
Reality Check, you WOULD be impressed by Will's conspiracy theorys about JFK, the Catholic Church, and his ability to recognize one of the great investigators of our time: Jesse Ventura. I realize I will be severely punished by the occult powers Will apparently believes in, but don't worry, that just means I won't get invited to the eternal party in the clouds that is being planned for you all. Sigh. I assume you're calling me "ma'am" because you have a fetish for authoritarian females. I hate to disappoint you but, while I am a legal authority compared to you, I am also, as I said, a dude. Maybe you already know that, and you prefer to picture me as a female, perhaps out of a fetishistic sense, perhaps because you feel it makes you somehow superior to me, I don't know. I might agree with your concluding thought about "influence" anywhere...not just in our local courts. But I'm puzzled as to what "power" you think Fran Lawrence has over the judge, or why he doesn't exert it in the cases he happens to lose in front of Judge Barkley. I suspect you don't even have one in mind, but that you're just one of those people that has no brakes between your brain and your mouth, or in this case your hands. I think it's also good you didn't go into statistics, as they would teach you that an n of 1 doesn't give you enough data to make almost any statements about a system. ONE person lost A case; the judge must have been corrupt. Very logical conclusion.
"You're life" speaks to the efficacy of the lie. Grammar do tell all don't it? Or is it a brilliant "goof" by a Rouson ally demonstrating the Palinesque "quality" of those condoning Barkley's pretentious and gross false-elite betrayal of Justice? G-d is not mocked: the curse comes not without cause. Beware.
"You're life" speaks to the efficacy of the lie? First of all, what lie? And how would an innocent typo prove that a lie was effective? Geez, Will, you're a weirdo.
P.S.: Jessamy, you don't feel the slightest bit slimy thanking Will Jones for his comments? You didn't see that he insulted all women by implying that they are all easily "excitable"? You're having to make do with some pretty pathetic bedfellows...
Be worthy of your blood and name Patriots: take note as fascist plutocracy's myrmidon, sowing lies, perversion, and chaos, outs "himself." It's no coincidence such lost souls foisted off on us James Guckert's WH lover to commit manifold abominations against G-d, the Constitution, and the People.
Let us follow The Founder once more: the Beast won't be casting itself into the Pit, yet fully expropriated and extirpated must its Fifth Column be...or slaves once more are we - the American Dream extinguished.
Wake up before it's too late, the Truth is obvious.
"A Friend": Apparently you don't read these comments any more carefully than you write them. It was Reality Check who stated on 2/21 that your writing style exemplified that of an excitable female and asked, "Mrs. Judge, is that you?" Not Will Jones. If you insist on continuing to insult people, please get your facts straight. You accuse Reality Check of being: "one of those people that has no brakes between your brain and your mouth, or in this case your hands." Perhaps you should read your own comments before making such an attack. Reality Check and Will Jones are both extremely capable of countering your assaults, but at least direct your assaults accurately.
Once again, your pedantic and insulting comments do not merit a response. However, if you are going to quote me, quote me correctly. Again - read what people are saying. I did not say anything about who Judge Barkley should or should not meet with. I merely cited the laws from the Judicial Ethics Handbook. Those laws speak for themselves. The public can decide whether it was proper or improper for Judge Barkley to meet ex-parte with his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence, directly before a decision was rendered in a criminal case.
I also did not say Judge Barkley was "crooked". I said that in my opinion, and that of many others, Judge Barkley showed tremendous bias towards his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence. That is the question the article is asking the public to answer.
In regard to the Commonwealth, I am not "hiding" anything. The Attorneys of the Commonwealth are perfectly capable of expressing their own opinions. I would not presume to speak for them. However, I do thank you, "A Friend", for inspiring me to look up these laws and the "defense" case. This information shall be extremely helpful moving forward.
JennSilv: Thank you for reading. I do not believe this is meant to be a forum where there is a "winner" and a "loser". It's a forum for public debate. I agree that some of this debate has been exasperating, but other parts have been educational. My civil case is on appeal, so this has not been in vain. I have learned quite a bit in the process of these debates and from my experiences in court. It is actually up to the defendant to decide if she would like to "move on". Thus far, the defendant has chosen to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to avoid paying for her actions and her obligations. The majority of people pay their bills. They don't attempt to avoid them by breaking the law and hiring "influential" attorneys. However, thank you for your concern.
FYI: "JennSilv" is the twisted "A Friend."
Will: Thank you for pointing that out. I had no idea who "JennSilv" was, but I notice that person has not commented on this matter previously - at least not under that name. I look forward to your response, and Reality Check's response, to "A Friend's" offensive and crass personal insults. Whoever he/she really is, he/she certainly does not represent themselves like any attorney I have ever met.
As "Concerned Citizen" stated on 2/15 in his comment to "A Friend": "Your offensive comments have been a disgrace to the legal profession and an honest revelation regarding your lack of character."
Okay the Judicial Ethics are not "laws", so you're already off to a bad start. Next, I love the "your comments don't merit a response but here's a long one..." And yes...I feel really "countered" by Will's increasingly inscrutable rants about "myrmidon" and "Fifth Columns". Next, you brain seems to have a serious block in it that won't allow information to seep in. HOW MANY TIMES must we explain over and over that we ALL agree the Judge shouldn't meet ex parte with a lawyer in a case, but if they don't discuss the case they are not meeting ex parte. DUUUUHHHHH. So your sentence "The public can decide whether it was proper or improper for Judge Barkley to meet ex-parte with his wife's partner, Fran Lawrence, directly before a decision was rendered in a criminal case," is really one of those debate mind tricks that only works on idiots, but it doesn't work on me. We all agree 'ex parte bad'...we DON'T agree that there was ANY ex parte contact here. Even Gasbag, who was in your camp for a while agrees on this point. That should matter to you because you REALLY seem to think the public opinion is of the utmost importance...that is, until they disagree with you, and then suddenly you change your stripes like all intellectually dishonest people do. You have no consistent viewpoint on anything except that you are right, and the judge is corrupt. All other opinions are flexible and can be adapted to fit your only fixed factor. Oh, and I didn't realize you were saying the judge wasn't crooked, because when you said Fran went back into his office and the judge just came out and made a surprising ruling and then went back in with no explanation, it sounded like you were implying the judge was throwing the case Fran's way, which WOULD be crooked. It's nice to see at least that you no longer think this is the case. I guess you think he just made a mistake, so at least now you are just saying the judge did something accidentally and not on purpose. So what are we even debating in here? I mean mistakes happen, that's what "de novo" appeals are for. Jessamy, finally your thanking of Will Jones for his statement that I am JennSilv reveals a lot about you. It shows that you will believe any statement that you believe to be in your favor without any evidence whatsoever. People like that always think they are adequately prepared for battle (legal or otherwise) because they are unable to see weaknesses in what they perceive as their strengths. Only an administrator of this website would see the email addresses associated with the screennames on here, and would be able to say who is who. Will is not such an administrator. Secondly, you can believe me or not, but I am no JennSilv any more than YOU are Will Jones. Two people of a common opinion are not necessarily the same person, believe it or not. It would also be unusual for someone like me who has written lengthily, and generally without typos, to put up a single sentence that DOES have a typo in it. Your lame attempt to quote someone else who tried unsuccessfully to insult me was also not successful in making it sound like YOU aren't trying to insult me by quoting him. Face it, you insult me, I insult you. You are no better than me. The only real question here is have you proven judicial misconduct and the answer is no...You haven't proven a THING. Which just gives you a perfect track record consistent with your efforts in court. I'm glad you read that case, although it's really only relevant to the criminal case, not the civil one you have coming up again. JennSilv makes a good point. You're like a runner who lost a race and now instead of training and making your muscles stronger for the next race, you are just complaining about the starting gun in the first race instead. That's not going to gain you anything. Maybe you're right, that just the very act of debate will prepare you a little better for round 2. I don't have any specific ill will toward you; if you can do better, more power to you. But you have this VERY annoying antipathy toward anyone that has a different viewpoint from you. My viewpoint is based on my personal experience, my professional experience, my legal training...nothing more. Nothing about my opinion about this judge's conduct has anything to do with you. Nor is it naive. Naive lawyers don't do very well in court. I do very well in court. And I have never done anything underhanded to do well in court. You can take my opinion and treat it as corruption or a personal vendetta against you...at one point you conspired to think that I was actually Rhonda Quagliana...which is also telling to me: you are a person who is more likely to look for an outlandish conspiracy theory on EVERY point (even who you are debating with online!) than to pause, consider what someone has said to you, consider it's intrinsic indicia of reliability, and then consider whether you should perhaps allow room for a slight cautious doubt as to your original opinion. It is said that intelligence is the ability to deal with change. You have shown a remarkable inability to change. I haven't changed my opinion either, but I have remained RECEPTIVE to it, which is why I commended you for your counterargument to Harless, as far as it went. As I said, there was no need to debate that point further, because then I would be debating an argument that was never raised in your case. I don't care if I don't represent myself like any attorney you have ever met. You are not the first person to tell me that I am unlike any other attorney they have ever met. I actually take that as a compliment. I am one of the most vigorous and tenacious defenders of the innocent you will ever meet, and I happen to think that Judge Barkley is innocent of what you accuse him of here, so I will vigorously defend him as I would ANY unjustly accused person. You can take it as an "offensive and crass insult" against you, or you can see it for what it is...a vigorous defense of an unjustly accused person. It doesn't change the substance of the debate, it only speaks to your ability to recognize whether everything is about you or not and your ability to admit when you might be wrong. And since you like to point out unanswered questions, you never did tell me why Fran Lawrence sometimes loses in front of Judge Barkley.
A lot of you are forgetting that judicial misconduct is like attorney malpractice: first you have to prove that something was not done up to standards, THEN you have to prove that it had an effect on your case. I admitted right off the bat, the disclosure should be more explicit. I can even understand how a layperson who does not deal with the court every day, like we attorneys do, would think that strange stuff must happen behind that door. There are actually multiple ways into the judge's chambers and if someone were trying to do something shady back there, it would seem more likely they would exit the judge's chambers through the clerk's office where you WOULDN'T see them coming out, and then enter into the courtroom. But, like you said, we're supposed to be keeping even APPEARANCES squeaky clean. The more conspiratorial the mindset of the viewer, apparently the more rigidly we have to safeguard. It's kind of impossible for the legal profession to accommodate the most conspiratorial views...e.g., that a judge even TALKING to someone before a case might give an appearance of corruption. The profession has collectively decided that that is just too nuts, and that we're not going to make rules preventing mere talking. Now, as I said, this is all first-round stuff. You have a bit of a point in the first round, because the disclosure should probably be more explicit. What you don't have is a SHRED of evidence to back you up in the second round...i.e. that it had any effect on your case. Your point is that since the judge did not supply the Commonwealth's rebuttal for it to the controlling piece of caselaw, that he was corrupt. I'm sorry that's flat out wrong. You sing the praises of the Commonwealth's Attorney...not because they did an excellent job but because they WERE ON YOUR SIDE! You do that in here as well, Jessamy. Thanking Will for pointing out that I am JennSilv, even though he hasn't given you any evidence to believe that I am. You automatically think much of anyone that is on your side. You are unable to see the weaknesses in the people you perceive as your "teammates". I am telling you that a GOOD and THOROUGH attorney would not leave a case up to chance...if the other side quoted a Supreme Court case that seemed to control the outcome of a case, I would DEFINITELY read the case and prepare a rebuttal brief of it. THERE IS NO REASON *NOT* TO. Even you know that. You won't go pull the file and confirm that none was written because you have an inability to acknowledge weakness in yourself or in anyone that is on your side. Although, I CAN understand not pulling the file because you believe there's none there...I'm SURE there's none there. But when you imply, we shouldn't have NEEDED to file a brief, that's when you really expose your and the Commonwealth's mistake. It can't hurt you to file a brief. It might help you. What...WHAT...is the justification not to, then? Did you do everything you could to win? No. DID you win? No. If you had it to do over again, would you try that one last step? If you say yes, you're admitting this might not have been the judge's fault. If you say no, you're proving that you would rather willingly lose a case than admit you might be wrong about something. It kind of comes down to deciding which is more important to you: your case or your foolish pride?
It's funny that Im someone I don't evn know because I spell a word wrong or so someone says. Get a life whoever thinks that! A friend is right. You think whoever says what you like is the whole public supporting you, but anyone else must be someone who knows the judge.
I read this a month ago and couldn't believe it is still getting comments. LIke I said last time, Jessamy, you lost in court and a Friend told you why! It isn't easy to read what he writes, but it is all there! I don'tlive on the internet like you people and it's making you crazy.
Wow, are you guys still at it?!
@ A Friend: In the interest of setting the record straight, ma'am, I'd like to clarify that my comment directed at Will Jones was meant to state that his post made Feb 26th at 5:30am (not 7:35am) was amusing. I quote:
"Rather than call the righteous "whig" the present day pseudo-aristoi effeminately complaining of "rabble" now cry "tin foil." Plus ca change..."
The post he made at 7:35 was decidedly not amusing, but unfortunately that's where my comment landed. Since I was extremely clear in stating that my politics and those of Mr Jones couldn't be further apart, your manic screed regarding my comment was entirely unnecessary.
And seriously, young lady, either locate the return key on your computer, or cajole a sympathetic acquaintance into pointing it out to you. Paragraphs are your friend. I promise.
Mr Jones reads like a bad parody of William Blake written with neither wit nor charm. I'm very confused as to how Ms. Rousson found support for her cause in an anti-Catholic rant from him having nothing to do with her case.
Reality Check, are you A.) "manicly" (to use your terminology) dense that despite my numerous statements on the point you still don't grasp that I'm a male?, or B.) some backwards sexist redneck that thinks I would be emotionally hurt if you called me female even though I'm a male...I guess, you know, because they're apparently so inferior that that would be an insult, in your book? I'm a little more enlightened than you. Doesn't hurt my feelings at all, and only makes me pity you your backwardness. Get a life and join the 21st century. We actually allow women to vote now!
"Manicly dense." Tant pis.
Reality Check, sounds like you're taking lessons from Will Jones in the inscrutable language department. This is an english language page; please join us.
Reality Check, sounds like you're taking lessons from Will Jones in the inscrutable language department. This is an english language page; please join us.
Oh wait...that PROVES that Reality Check and Will Jones are the SAME PERSON!!! Both of whom are clearly Jessamy Rousson. How did I not see it before? It was the perfect cover! Accusing the other side of it to hide that she was doing it herself! Of course!
Ah, Reminds me of the book, Animal Farm. All animals are created equal, some are more equal. Our judicial system used to be the best in the world, not any more. Its still lipstick on a pig. It also reminds me that Albemarle County lets incidences go by the wayside instead of prosecuting, case in point false police report of a shooting by an officer. TSK TSk
I printed a lot of your blog out thanks my friend
Remarkably! Thanks!